10 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainDid you miss this bit in the side window:
"It says the CO2 count then was about 400 PPM. Pretty high, probably from volcano activity."
400 PPM is about the same as now and you are probably wrong about volcanic activity. Read the link below so you are not so clueless. It is like you will not accept the fact that temperatures come first then CO2 rises. You need to correct your cause and effect. ...[text shortened]... to convert it to Fahrenheit? I'm not sure what you are thinking. You are confused or something.
What are global warming skeptics
really saying?
Because of repeated attacks against skeptics in the media, many believe that skeptics are making a number of statements when in fact they are not. Please consult our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Global Warming Skeptics:
· Are skeptics defending the oil companies? No!
· Do skeptics deny the existence of serious environmental problems that demand our attention? No!
· Are skeptics saying that the world’s top climate scientists are wrong? No!
· Do skeptics deny global warming as such? No!
· Do skeptics deny the “greenhouse effect”? No!
· Do skeptics deny that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”? No!
· Do skeptics deny that atmospheric temperature and CO2 are causally linked? No!
Do skeptics say scientists are wrong? NO.
So that means they are at odds with the general scientific work saying CO2 is one of the major contributors to global warming.
I guess you have a window of opportunity in that this latest CO2 rise is so recent, in geological terms, so it will be proven not by the kind of rhetoric you engage in but in actual rises in temps that will take place (or not) in the next 100 years or so.
10 May 15
Originally posted by humy"Only a relatively small difference in CO2 concentration can make a measurable difference to the final temperature at equilibrium which, of course, takes time when there is a change in CO2 concentration, because of such things in physics as the heat capacity of a system that delays or slows down temperature changes."
"about" is the operative word here. And it was not "the same as now" until very recently assuming it wasn't slightly greater than 400ppm then. Only a relatively small difference in CO2 concentration can make a measurable difference to the final temperature at equilibrium which, of course, takes time when there is a change in CO2 concentration, because of such t ...[text shortened]... I know more about science than the scientists here! And, unlike you, I HAVE science credentials!
Temperature changes you claim take a long time happen every year. Seasonal changes in temperature show your claim of heat capacity taking a long time is flawed. I am very surprised you are still clinging to this flawed logic. Also, CO2 didn't just get dumped on us all at once. It has been slowly increasing. Even if your claim had merit (which it obviously does not) we would be seeing temperatures nearly as high as the Pliocene.
The Pliocene is the real inconvenient truth for you alarmists bent on scaring people into accepting a tax that will do nothing to curb global warming. Furthermore, you still have not proposed anything to solve your imaginary problem of increasing CO2 . The only thing you have proposed is renewables that generally cannot compete with fossil fuels and you are still stubbornly in denial of this fact. Despite advances in solar technology we are still a long way from cost efficient solar. Your denial is so unrealistic that you even resort to conspiracy theories of technology suppression by the fossil fuel industry. You are just a crazy loon that cannot accept reality. Like Richard Lindzen said:
"As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical."
That is what you are doing, you are getting more fanatical. Your physics education means little in this context. You boast about it like an ape thumping his chest as if I should be scared or something. The reality is that you are simply embarrassing yourself. It was below 0 degrees F for much of January and February here where I live and it was over 80 degrees F just a couple of days ago. The average coldest part of winter is only about a month after the winter solstice. Your heat capacity assertion of an extended delay is bunk. Even a child could see that. Give it up.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/
10 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"So that means they are at odds with the general scientific work saying CO2 is one of the major contributors to global warming."
Did you miss this bit in the side window:
What are global warming skeptics
really saying?
Because of repeated attacks against skeptics in the media, many believe that skeptics are making a number of statements when in fact they are not. Please consult our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Global Warming Skeptics:
· Are skeptics def ...[text shortened]... ngage in but in actual rises in temps that will take place (or not) in the next 100 years or so.
CO2 contributes to warming, but it is not the primary factor. If it was the earth would be close to being as warm as the Pliocene. That fact that it is not shows CO2 is not the bogeyman you and other alarmists are making it out to be. Just because you are in denial of it does not change that fact.
I think you are making the mistake of thinking CO2 at 400 PPM is a significant percentage of gas in the atmosphere. You do realize that PPM means Parts Per Million, right?
10 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI know those figures a LOT better than you, I have worked in the scientific field exposed to many different kinds of technology, including a stint at Goddard Space Flight Center, working on Apollo, Apollo Tracking and timing to be exact. And I am still at it in a science venture full time now in semiconductor thin film development.
"So that means they are at odds with the general scientific work saying CO2 is one of the major contributors to global warming."
CO2 contributes to warming, but it is not the primary factor. If it was the earth would be close to being as warm as the Pliocene. That fact that it is not shows CO2 is not the bogeyman you and other alarmists are making it ...[text shortened]... ant percentage of gas in the atmosphere. You do realize that PPM means Parts Per Million, right?
It doesn't take many parts per million to have a disastrous effect on the atmosphere, and CO2 is like you say, only one effect, we would be in really deep doo doo if methane were at that level, it is something like 20 times more potent greenhouse gas effect than CO2. That is also one of the problems, the more CO2 released, and the more temperature rises for whatever reason, the more methane gets released from sources like permafrost and those little blobs of undersea solid deposits of methane.
That kind of thing can spell real trouble for the climate.
10 May 15
Why are we so fascinated in discussing climate with denialists? We struggle to make them understand the physics behind, but we will always lose the battle. Not because we are wrong, but because it is impossible to get through with our arguments. Why?
I know why I read these threads. Not because of the discussion per se, I've been tired for a long time in that, but because I am interested in marginal groups and their way to think that they are right even though everything works against them.
I have given up the spiritual forum where such people resides, but climate discussions should be about science, but for some people it can very well be about spiritual matters as climatologiy matters, there is just not much different between the two.
So my question is: Why do you enjoy this discussion so much? What is your gain in this play?
10 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"It doesn't take many parts per million to have a disastrous effect on the atmosphere"
I know those figures a LOT better than you, I have worked in the scientific field exposed to many different kinds of technology, including a stint at Goddard Space Flight Center, working on Apollo, Apollo Tracking and timing to be exact. And I am still at it in a science venture full time now in semiconductor thin film development.
It doesn't take many ...[text shortened]... dersea solid deposits of methane.
That kind of thing can spell real trouble for the climate.
If that were so we would be in a Pliocene like climate. The fact that we are not proves that your so called "disastrous effect" is alarmist nonsense. You have simply overestimated the warming effect of CO2. You got so caught up in the false cause and effect that you cannot fathom the reality that the cause and effect you were taught is a falsehood. Temperatures rise then CO2 rises later, not the other way around. Your mention of methane is just obfuscation. You have now resorted to distancing yourself from CO2. Now your position is mostly unknown to many that read this. You cannot decide which gas to demonize. Fail!
11 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhether 400 parts per million is high or low really depends on the gas. If it were oxygen then 400 parts per million would be disastrously low. If it were hydrogen cyanide disastrously high. In the case of carbon dioxide 400 parts per million is high.
"So that means they are at odds with the general scientific work saying CO2 is one of the major contributors to global warming."
CO2 contributes to warming, but it is not the primary factor. If it was the earth would be close to being as warm as the Pliocene. That fact that it is not shows CO2 is not the bogeyman you and other alarmists are making it ...[text shortened]... ant percentage of gas in the atmosphere. You do realize that PPM means Parts Per Million, right?
11 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThought"In the case of carbon dioxide 400 parts per million is high."
Whether 400 parts per million is high or low really depends on the gas. If it were oxygen then 400 parts per million would be disastrously low. If it were hydrogen cyanide disastrously high. In the case of carbon dioxide 400 parts per million is high.
High compared to what? The Eocene?
400 PPM is not a bad thing. I have a question for you. What would happen if CO2 was reduced to 150 PPM? Would it be good or bad?
Originally posted by Metal BrainBad. Very bad! That is far too low as it would not only tend to make the climate too cold (with all else equal, of course ). But, even without that drop in temperature, it would directly greatly reduce the amount of photosynthesis and thus measurably reduce crop yields thus increasing the tendency for world hunger. In fact, with all else equal, it would be a disaster. Instead of everyone being concerned with global warming, we would become concerned with global cooling.
. What would happen if CO2 was reduced to 150 PPM? Would it be good or bad?
I don't know enough to give a well-qualified estimate of what the ideal CO2 level would be, but I would personally imagine it to be vary roughly something like ~300 ppm with any amount being much greater or smaller than that being bad.
11 May 15
Originally posted by humy"But, even without that drop in temperature, it would directly greatly reduce the amount of photosynthesis and thus measurably reduce crop yields thus increasing the tendency for world hunger."
Bad. Very bad! That is far too low as it would not only tend to make the climate too cold (with all else equal, of course ). But, even without that drop in temperature, it would directly greatly reduce the amount of photosynthesis and thus measurably reduce crop yields thus increasing the tendency for world hunger. In fact, with all else equal, it would be a di ...[text shortened]... ughly something like ~300 ppm with any amount being much greater or smaller than that being bad.
Exactly my point. CO2 levels of 400 PPM is a good thing. It will increase crop yields so there is more food for people to eat. Your previous assertion that it will result in less food and famine is complete B.S.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 May 15
Originally posted by Metal Brainhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html
"But, even without that drop in temperature, it would directly greatly reduce the amount of photosynthesis and thus measurably reduce crop yields thus increasing the tendency for world hunger."
Exactly my point. CO2 levels of 400 PPM is a good thing. It will increase crop yields so there is more food for people to eat. Your previous assertion that it will result in less food and famine is complete B.S.
There are people out there who still will poopoo this, saying carbon dioxide is good for us, and plants love it. Let me be clear: This is the single dumbest thing climate change deniers have ever said, and that’s a deep, deep well of dumbosity.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/10/carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming_more_is_not_better.html
11 May 15
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainwhat? You complain when you get a dose of your own medicine? After all the arrogant condescending insults you give all us scientists, who know a lot more than you do, and everyone else here? Really?
More insults?
Well then, if that bothers you, it would be highly fitting to give you this one as well: you are a hypocrite.
Do you feel better after you insult me? Does it make you feel like a man?
Do you feel better after insult all us scientists and others here? Does it make you feel like a man?
11 May 15
6 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. The devastating damage done to crops be the increased incidence of hurricanes, droughts and flooding from having such excessively higher levels of CO2 would more than offset any gains from increased photosynthesis thus result in a net decrease in average yields and increased tendency towards world hanger and famines and more human deaths.
"But, even without that drop in temperature, it would directly greatly reduce the amount of photosynthesis and thus measurably reduce crop yields thus increasing the tendency for world hunger."
Exactly my point. CO2 levels of 400 PPM is a good thing..
CO2 level of 400 ppm is a bad thing. When that level increases, this would be a worser thing.