People [snip] are capable of recognizing that there is a difference between these two statements.

Humans are responsible for none of the new CO2.
Humans are not responsible for 100% of the new CO2.

[Steve: snip - Mark -please stop the personal comments. I know that you're not the only one, but you're doing it too mcuh]

Well, it was mostly Mark T, but you did say this:

I’m guessing that you are unaware that warming waters release CO2. This runs counter to your claim that it is completely proven that 100% of new CO2 is produced by man.

So I guess you were arguing that the CO2 increase isn’t 100% manmade. That’s less wrong, I suppose.

The whole discussion is here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

This is the thread, btw, in which Boris was asking for a reference that increased temperature results in decreased solubility of CO2 in water. Bender didn’t step in likely because it’s pointless to argue with you. It does get very tiresome to have to repeatedly point people to wikipedia for simple concepts such as this (or how about “every single chemistry textbook that has ever been written”?).

Oh, and yes, it is a function of partial pressure and no, the average CO2 content in the atmosphere is not the partial pressure immediately above the surface of the ocean. It is common knowledge that the increased temperature of the atmosphere results in less net absorption of CO2 by the ocean which can either be seen as increased release, or decreased absorption (contrary to “single track” thought, it is a two-way process, so more of one direction is identical in effect as less in the other). It is also fairly straight out of chemistry text books that increased release (or decreased absorption) will result in an increase of concentration near the surface… what’s being released has to come from somewhere.

Mark

Freeman Dyson,”Climate Denier,” quoted by Lawrence Solomon

James,

I think you’ve read them all, because I’ve done it. Most of the articles refers to altered states of the skin by cosmetics, fabrics, clothes, mobile phones, autostereos, etc. Some articles do not refer to human skin emissivity and one of them clearly says that the value 0.98 had been an asumption:

“In reality, the human body does not radiate this much heat.” (I = -447 W/m^2!!! More heat than that absorbed by Earth’s surface!).

Another author says that…

“The emissivity of human skin is higher and it is within 1% of that of a perfect black body…” Well, the emissivity of a perfect black body is 1.0, then the 1% of 1.0 would be the emissivity of the human skin, that is 0.01.

Nature’s article refers to wavebands between 2 μ and 6 μ and that “Such machines …” were “…calibrated against a standard black body.” A standard black body has an emissivity of 1.0, no more.

The second article of Nature says:

“Unfortunately, there is conflicting evidence on the magnitude of Hardy and Muschenheim…” who “…concluded that dead skin should be regarded as a black body (Ñ” = 1). While this conclusion can be justified when Q is the total energy received at all wavelengths (λ) it is not necessarily applicable in the range 2 μet al refers to forced-air warming with upper body blankets. I didn’t find the Ñ” = 0.98 anywhere in the article. However, I found interesting data; for example in no one of their tests there were a heat flux that rose up to 74 W, which is coincident with the emissivity of 0.7.

Think about this: if a man were under the sunbeams and his skin absorptivity-emissivity were 98%, how much heat would his body absorb and what would be his body’s temperature by the amount of heat absorbed? And, what would the heat absorbed-emitted by his body be if he rested on a surface facing up that emitted 181.5 W/m^2?

Now think, if the emissivity of the human body were 0.99 and the air temperature were 50.00 °F, how long the human body could stay in thermal equilibrium?

I cannot blame the 6 billion people living on this planet of being culprit of the global warming just because they “breathe and sweat”. If I wished to find the real cause of this variability, I’d look at the sky, at the oceans, at the Earth’s inner and outer cores, even at the massive pieces of crust that rub one against another. Both, “global warming” and “climate change” are natural phenomena.

James,

Let’s take the value -95 watts from wikipedia to know the value of human body’s emissivity that the author of the article used to quantitify the heat emited by a human being:

-95 W

q = σ(e)(A)(Ts ^4 ‘€” T’ˆž ^4)

e = q / σ(A)(Ts ^4-T’ˆž ^4)

e = -95 W / 1.78 (0.000000056697) (5566789783.30100625 K – 9193573180.35000625 K) = -95 W / (0.00000010092066 W/m^2*K) (-3626783397.049 K) = -95 W / -366.0174 W = 0.26

0.26 Of emissivity -not that “near 1″ that he says- which means that the writer of the Wikipedia’s article played a bit with physiology and TT. Under the same conditions of inner and outer environments, taken 0.7 as the average emissivity of the skin, the body would have to get rid of 256.2 W. How could the body make this? By means of a more profuse perspiration, a faster heartbeat, a more frequent breathing, etc., except if its hypothalamus is… damaged.

98.6 is the temperature of the inside of your body, the skin itself is cooler.
Most males wear clothes during at least part of the day. That also insulates.

James Erlandson,

You are reducing complex human thermodynamics to a model applicable to a turnip which is rather like viewing the earth’s climate as a simple greenhouse

I’m not reducing Earth’s climate “as a simple greenhouse effect”. Obviously, there are many factors that contribute to climate variability. I’m only correcting an error in the calculus of the heat emitted by the human body. We have to work with averages. Incluse, if one needs to know how much heat emitts a specific organ or tissue, we have to calculate the average of the emissivity of that organ or tissue because the human body is not a homogeneous material.

I don’t know where the “near 1″ from Wikipedia popped out. 0.7 is a value above 0.5 and it is near to 1. I take he value used to calculate the heat emitted by the human body from several sources, Heat Transfer by Pitts/Sissom, Linearized Heat Transfer Relations in Biology by Bakken, Human Biology by Sylvia Mader, Physics by Wilson, etc. Another thing which we must take into account is the temperature of the air that surrounds the studied human body, to a higher environmental temperature, the smaller amount of heat transferred from the body towards the atmosphere. When this happens in nature, the body responds forcing heat towards the atmosphere through a substance with a higher absorptivity, for the case, sweat. This is called “forced convective heat transfer”, which, although forced, is natural.

The laziness that we felt when the atmosphere is warm is because our bodies react before the excessive heat by relaxing themselves, that is, by “loosening” themselves for not producing more heat through movement.

Wikipedia gives a value of 95 watts. Do you know what would be the body’s temperature caused by that amount of energy? 101.12 °F… a feverish T, isn’t it?

They call this a consensus?

The series

Statistics needed — The Deniers Part I
Warming is real — and has benefits — The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science — The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice — The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold — The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change — The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? — The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability — The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming — The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 — the Deniers Part X
End the chill — The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research — The Deniers Part XII
Allegre’s second thoughts — The Deniers XIII
The heat’s in the sun — The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science — The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC — The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us — The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate ‘fluff’ — The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics — The Deniers XIX

They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007