Evidence that the climate scam is collapsing

[Lord of Planar]

I came across something I thought you might find interesting. I remember you were interested in energy that was sequestered chemically during in photosynthesis. This article takes a look at how significant that and other non thermal sequestering might be:

Earth’s Non-Thermal Energy Storage Rate​

The planetary temperature formula includes a term,

, which represents the net rate at which energy in the planet’s “climate zone” is being stored as non-thermal energy (i.e., energy not reflected in the temperature or phase of matter).

How large is the rate of non-thermal-energy storage on Earth at present?

In what follows, I will estimate the rates at which energy is stored in the following non-thermal forms:

• Mechanical energy of atmospheric circulation
• Mechanical energy of ocean circulation
• Chemical energy of organic matter

Earth’s Non-Thermal Energy Storage Rate – Climate Puzzles

climatepuzzles.org

That isn't very helpful. We have always had these numbers, or similar available. It is missing the endothermic and exothermic parts of the chemical change equation for the photosynthesis, and approximate 95% reverse processes of respiration and decay.

6CO2 + 6H2O + heat → C6H12O6 + 6O2

Since heat is needed to complete the chemical change, it is an endothermic process. There are different heat numbers by the few differing papers I could find. When I searched before and pieced together all I could find, the best I could conclude was just over 0.5 W/m^2 of global cooling via chemical sequestration but I don't even remember for sure. It did not meet my standards. I could not find enough matching information to feel comfortable my conclusion was even in the ballpark.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Interesting fun fact. Photosynthesis does not produce O2 from CO2.

 

[George50]

Back at you. The two different brown semicircles in the surface region show no connections.

That is showing two different processes at work, one powered by the sun, the other powered by clouds and greenhouse gasses.

The author shows the connections between the two processes in the bottom boxes, bracketed area and with the dashed white lines.

The very bottom box shows the extent of the thermal radiation in the chart, the radiation heat transfer (56) being connected with the greenhouse side. The total thermal radiation is then divided by the box above into surface emissions which again shows the connection between the two processes, this connection is also reinforced by the bracket “thermal radiation emitted by surface (398)” and the dashed white lines.

 

[George50]

That isn't very helpful. We have always had these numbers, or similar available. It is missing the endothermic and exothermic parts of the chemical change equation for the photosynthesis, and approximate 95% reverse processes of respiration and decay.

6CO2 + 6H2O + heat → C6H12O6 + 6O2

Since heat is needed to complete the chemical change, it is an endothermic process. There are different heat numbers by the few differing papers I could find. When I searched before and pieced together all I could find, the best I could conclude was just over 0.5 W/m^2 of global cooling via chemical sequestration but I don't even remember for sure. It did not meet my standards. I could not find enough matching information to feel comfortable my conclusion was even in the ballpark.

The question is not how much cooling or heating there is. We know what the current total energy balance is. The question is how much change do we expect in the amount of heating or cooling over time that would impact the energy balance over time.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The question is not how much cooling or heating there is.

Yes. And the links you showed do not provide the heat numbers needed for the formation of the more complex molecules.

We know what the current total energy balance is.

It is excluding the numbers I have been looking for.

The question is how much change do we expect in the amount of heating or cooling over time that would impact the energy balance over time.

My point is that is the energy at the TOA was in perfect balance, we would be cooling as the process of life absorbs and sequesters that small amount of energy. Our planet in balance with a stable temperature and balance of ice mass would be a cooling planet as life takes energy to grow. There should be a net heat/energy uptake of the earth for a stable temperature.

 

[George50]

Yes. And the links you showed do not provide the heat numbers needed for the formation of the more complex molecules.

It is excluding the numbers I have been looking for.

Are you sure? I don’t see what is missing. They show how much energy is required to produce a year’s worth of organic matter through photosynthesis.

Chemical Energy of Organic Matter​

Photosynthesis converts solar energy into chemical energy within organic matter. That energy is later converted to heat when organic matter is decomposed.

If the total amount of organic matter on the planet was increasing, that would constitute a form of net energy storage.

Wikipedia estimates that photosynthesis currently produces about 123 GtC/yr (gigatonnes of carbon/year) while about 118.7 +1.1 = 119.8 GtC/yr of organic matter is returned to the atmosphere. (See this figure. Note that 1 Gt = 1 Pg.) This implies a net increase in organic carbon of about 3.2 GtC/yr.

Wikipedia also reports that photosynthesis capturing 130 TW of energy over a year equates to producing about 98 GtC of organic matter. Using that proportionality, 3.2 GtC/yr would equate to a net energy storage rate of 4.3 TW.

So, in our standard units, the energy storage rate associated with storing energy as chemical energy in organic matter is roughly:

4.3 TW
0.14 ZJ/yr
0.0084 W/m2

Earth’s Non-Thermal Energy Storage Rate – Climate Puzzles

climatepuzzles.org

My point is that is the energy at the TOA was in perfect balance, we would be cooling as the process of life absorbs and sequesters that small amount of energy. Our planet in balance with a stable temperature and balance of ice mass would be a cooling planet as life takes energy to grow. There should be a net heat/energy uptake of the earth for a stable temperature.

That part I follow.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Are you sure? I don’t see what is missing. They show how much energy is required to produce a year’s worth of organic matter through photosynthesis.

Chemical Energy of Organic Matter​

Photosynthesis converts solar energy into chemical energy within organic matter. That energy is later converted to heat when organic matter is decomposed.

If the total amount of organic matter on the planet was increasing, that would constitute a form of net energy storage.

Wikipedia estimates that photosynthesis currently produces about 123 GtC/yr (gigatonnes of carbon/year) while about 118.7 +1.1 = 119.8 GtC/yr of organic matter is returned to the atmosphere. (See this figure. Note that 1 Gt = 1 Pg.) This implies a net increase in organic carbon of about 3.2 GtC/yr.

Wikipedia also reports that photosynthesis capturing 130 TW of energy over a year equates to producing about 98 GtC of organic matter. Using that proportionality, 3.2 GtC/yr would equate to a net energy storage rate of 4.3 TW.

So, in our standard units, the energy storage rate associated with storing energy as chemical energy in organic matter is roughly:

4.3 TW
0.14 ZJ/yr
0.0084 W/m2

Earth’s Non-Thermal Energy Storage Rate – Climate Puzzles

climatepuzzles.org

That part I follow.

Those numbers are wrong for the energy sequestration I am referring to. Those are way too low. I do not trust the numbers I came up with but the final 0.0084 is way too low.

I would like to see their method of deriving that number.

 

[George50]

Those numbers are wrong for the energy sequestration I am referring to. Those are way too low. I do not trust the numbers I came up with but the final 0.0084 is way too low.

I would like to see their method of deriving that number.

The is more information in the link I provided with citations for the numbers in the Wikipedia articles. Again, they are looking only at the increase in sequestration over time. That’s because when looking at climate change it’s the change over time that matters, not the absolute numbers.

If you are looking at the total energy per year to support photosynthesis instead of the increase in energy per year it would be 123/3.2*0.0084 = 0.32 W/m2 based on their calculations.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The is more information in the link I provided with citations for the numbers in the Wikipedia articles. Again, they are looking only at the increase in sequestration over time. That’s because when looking at climate change it’s the change over time that matters, not the absolute numbers.

If you are looking at the total energy per year to support photosynthesis instead of the increase in energy per year it would be 123/3.2*0.0084 = 0.32 W/m2 based on their calculations.

It does not include the energy absorbed from the chemical process. It is missing that part. Prove me wrong.

 

[George50]

It does not include the energy absorbed from the chemical process. It is missing that part. Prove me wrong.

Say what? Photosynthesis is the chemical process. The article I showed you resulted in 0.32 W/m2 used in the photosynthesis process and incorporated into biomass but the vast majority of that is recovered in respiration or fires leaving only a tiny 0.0084 W/m2 net stored.

Back to your 6CO2 + 6H2O + heat → C6H12O6 + 6O2, the 0.32 W/m2 is the heat.

Here’s another reference that gives a value of 4,400 EJ/year but that only translates to 0.27 W/m2 incorporated into biomass by photosynthesis.

Ringsmuth et al. [Citation7] estimate the chemical energy flux incorporated by photosynthesis into terrestrial biomass as 2100 EJ/year, and into aquatic biomass as 2300 EJ/year.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17583004.2017.1309201

Or you could use the 0.5 value you mentioned earlier. Either way only the net change in the amount stored is what is important when looking at the change in climate and that is a tiny number.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Say what? Photosynthesis is the chemical process. The article I showed you resulted in 0.32 W/m2 used in the photosynthesis process and incorporated into biomass but the vast majority of that is recovered in respiration or fires leaving only a tiny 0.0084 W/m2 net stored.

Back to your 6CO2 + 6H2O + heat → C6H12O6 + 6O2, the 0.32 W/m2 is the heat.

Here’s another reference that gives a value of 4,400 EJ/year but that only translates to 0.27 W/m2 incorporated into biomass by photosynthesis.

Ringsmuth et al. [Citation7] estimate the chemical energy flux incorporated by photosynthesis into terrestrial biomass as 2100 EJ/year, and into aquatic biomass as 2300 EJ/year.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17583004.2017.1309201

Or you could use the 0.5 value you mentioned earlier. Either way only the net change in the amount stored is what is important and that is a tiny number.

1) It appears this is only calculating the forcing of the CO2 removed.

2) I will not read a study when i do not have the time to find something that probably does not address the thermochemistry I am speaking of.

Quote me the part that gets into the thermochemistry.

 

[George50]

1) It appears this is only calculating the forcing of the CO2 removed.

As was clearly stated it is the energy used in photosynthesis.

2) I will not read a study when i do not have the time to find something that probably does not address the thermochemistry I am speaking of.

Quote me the part that gets into the thermochemistry.

I’m not sure what outside source of energy you are referring to besides the sunlight used in photosynthesis. Energy is stored during photosynthesis and used for various internal purposes. Any energy sequestered that you are referring to has to come from outside the plant to have any impact on the climate.

As far as the Chemistry of photosynthesis and respiration is concerned what goes into the plant is the same as what comes out of the plant. Yes there are other processes going on inside the plant but those don’t get energy from outside the plant at least as far as I know. We need energy from outside the plant for the photosynthesis and we generate energy outside the plant with the respiration.

What are you looking for in the thermochemistry that doesn’t seem to be apparent to other people?

 

[Lord of Planar]

As was clearly stated it is the energy used in photosynthesis.

Maybe the author didn't understand. That is most certainly not the thermochemistry number. It may be the amount retained from the light. It however is not reflective of the heat the chemical process removes from the environment when the chemical change occurs.

I’m not sure what outside source of energy you are referring to besides the sunlight used in photosynthesis. Energy is stored during photosynthesis and used for various internal purposes. Any energy sequestered that you are referring to has to come from outside the plant to have any impact on the climate.

OK. Thermochemistry is a different part of science that it appears climate scientists are ignorant to. Here is a simple thing you can do at home. Take say a quart of water and let it sit until it is at room temperature and measure the water temperature. Now put a cup of epsom salts in the water and measure the temperature again. It will measure several degrees colder.

This is the reaction I speak of. The heat removed from the surrounding system for the thermochemistry to take place.

As far as the Chemistry of photosynthesis and respiration is concerned what goes into the plant is the same as what comes out of the plant. Yes there are other processes going on inside the plant but those don’t get energy from outside the plant at least as far as I know. We need energy from outside the plant for the photosynthesis and we generate energy outside the plant with the respiration.

What are you looking for in the thermochemistry that doesn’t seem to be apparent to other people?

Here is the formula out of one of my chemistry books:



That 2,803 kJ/mol is 2,803,000 watt-seconds, for a 180.2 grams of glucose made. This is only that equation, and more happens yet in a plant.

 

[George50]

Maybe the author didn't understand. That is most certainly not the thermochemistry number. It may be the amount retained from the light. It however is not reflective of the heat the chemical process removes from the environment when the chemical change occurs.

The authors understand. Photosynthesis gets its energy from sunlight. Plants also undergo transpiration (they sweat), some of their chemical processes can also generate a little heat. I’m not aware of any other significant source of energy the plant acquires as a part of photosynthesis. Also, other chemical processes would take their energy from that which was stored.

OK. Thermochemistry is a different part of science that it appears climate scientists are ignorant to.

Well that’s wrong for sure.

Here is a simple thing you can do at home. Take say a quart of water and let it sit until it is at room temperature and measure the water temperature. Now put a cup of epsom salts in the water and measure the temperature again. It will measure several degrees colder.

This is the reaction I speak of. The heat removed from the surrounding system for the thermochemistry to take place.

Certainly what you describe happens in nature, but other than what I mentioned above I don’t think that plants take their energy from other sources.

Do you have a source that says otherwise?

Here is the formula out of one of my chemistry books:

View attachment 67583828

That 2,803 kJ/mol is 2,803,000 watt-seconds, for a 180.2 grams of glucose made. This is only that equation, and more happens yet in a plant.

Yes, and the 4.4 x 10^21 J that one researcher found is a lot of energy.

 

[longview]

I was thinking of the concept of CO2 driven climate change from the perspective of a single 15 um photon, 667 cm-1.
A photon is emitted from the surface, and within a few cm strikes a CO2 molecule at ground state.
The energy is absorbed. This level of quantum mechanics is governed by statistics,
but there is a million to one odds that the excited CO2 molecule will strike an H2O molecule and pass off the energy.
The excited H2O molecule will then ether pass off the energy in smaller portions to other atoms of molecules,
or eventually emit photons of equal or lower energy. Those photons will be in H2O's bands, and will be transparent to CO2.
Those photons will also have a greater than 50% chance of heading towards the sky, as opposed to the surface.
Some small portion of the original 15 um photons will never encounter a ground state CO2 molecule and will reach space.
Increasing the CO2 level would reduce this small portion, but again the energy will just transition to H2O and radiate from the
new (longer) wavelengths.
As the altitude increases, there is less and less H2O, but that also means that excited CO2 molecules spend a greater percentage
of their time in an excited (transparent) state.
This is what sound like it best matches the observed data.
We see OLR reductions in the 15 um bands and increases in the OLR H2O bands.

 

[dockside]

In 4.7 billion years of this planet, there is been only one constant to out climate; that is change.

The fraud of the left is in claiming that man has any significant impact and especially that if we give all our wealth and power to them they can "fix:" what is a purely natural cycle.

Here is an allegory to explain it.

One day Og awoke and wandered out of his lean-to only to discover that the mountain to the east was billowing smoke. Og became very frightened. He turned to his wife and said "mountain smoke, Og scared."

The wife met with all the other women while chewing hides and none of them could figure out why the mountain was smoking. So Og went to Algore, the village Shaman and said "why mountain smoke?" Algore shook a rattle and chanted some mumbo jumbo and then declared "The volcano god is angry because Og has too much food and life is too easy."

Algore went on "Og must make a sacrifice - as must every other villager. Bring me 9/10ths of all food and furs that you have, and I must also have your virgin daughters to appease the gods. If you do not give these to me, you will die, and not only you but EVERYONE in the village."

Og was very afraid. He loved his daughter, but how could he let everyone die? Besides, if he gave the Shaman 9/10th of his food to throw in the volcano, along with his daughter, he would have no food to feed his children and she would starve to death anyway.

So Og and the villagers gave Algore what he demanded. Algore gorged himself on the food and raped the girls for a month, then trudged up the mountain, raped Og's daughter again, murdered her, and threw her in the volcano. He did the same to the daughters of the other villagers.

Then Algore went back to the village and said that the gods were pleased, but in a year they would have to do it all again to keep pleasing the gods.

The next day, the volcano erupted and killed everyone in the village.

MORAL:

The volcano was real. Algore the Shaman had no more understanding of it than Og did, but he saw an opportunity to get the wealth and children of the villagers by leveraging their fear.

None of the sacrifices made by Og did anything - other than satiate Algore's lust and greed.

And THIS is what Anthropogenic Global Warming is today, Shamans taking everything from suckers based on fear.

Yes, climate change has been constant since the beginning of the planet. What has NOT been constant in climate change is the rate of change. Now it is happening at a much faster rate than in the past, faster than we and the flora and fauna can adapt without taking extreme measures to slow it down. So your "do-nothing, it's all natural" will kill us all, maybe in decades. But you're o.k. with that as long as the fossil-fuel industry makes its billions?

 

[Steve Case]

Yes, climate change has been constant since the beginning of the planet. What has NOT been constant in climate change is the rate of change. Now it is happening at a much faster rate than in the past, faster than we and the flora and fauna can adapt without taking extreme measures to slow it down. So your "do-nothing, it's all natural" will kill us all, maybe in decades. But you're o.k. with that as long as the fossil-fuel industry makes its billions?

It’s been decades already and not much except some greening due to increased CO2 has happened.

Warmer weather is not a problem
Longer growing seasons is not a problem
More rain is not a problem
More arable land is no a problem.
Greening of the Earth due increased CO2 is not a problem.
There isn’t any “Climate Crisis”

 

[longview]

Yes, climate change has been constant since the beginning of the planet. What has NOT been constant in climate change is the rate of change. Now it is happening at a much faster rate than in the past, faster than we and the flora and fauna can adapt without taking extreme measures to slow it down. So your "do-nothing, it's all natural" will kill us all, maybe in decades. But you're o.k. with that as long as the fossil-fuel industry makes its billions?

The limits on the resolution of proxy temperatures is such that we have no idea if changes since 1978 are unusual. The rate is very similar to the rate from 1910 to 1944, but before the instrument record the resolution is very poor.
Marcott found a median resolution of 120 years.