Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 and the Ozone Layer


CO2 and the Ozone Layer15-06-2017 20:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
What the IPCC and NOAA say about CO2 and ozone;

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Global and U.S. CO2 emissions
Emissions by Country


Pie chart that shows country share of greenhouse gas emission. 30% comes from China, 15% from the United States, 9% from the EU-28, 7% from India, 5% from the Russian Federation, 4% from Japan, and 30% from other countries.
Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2017). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

And why the ozone layer matters;
http://noubelize.gov.bz/sites/nou-belize/default.asp?site=nou-belize&page_id=A8D8B934-55B4-47BE-B04F-7CA86B0351A6

And since I am pursuing an experiment that shows how atmospheric forcing happens, between deep faults in the sea floor (my other thread; http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/el-nino-and-deep-faults-d6-e1437.php#post_20650) and the information in this post there is still much work to be done to understand how we are influencing natural climate change.


Jim
Edited on 15-06-2017 20:16
15-06-2017 20:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote:
What the IPCC and NOAA say about CO2 and ozone;

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2).

Jim, did you ever ask what "climate forcing" is?

Shall I be the first to inform you? You're not going to like it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-06-2017 14:03
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:
What the IPCC and NOAA say about CO2 and ozone;

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2).

Jim, did you ever ask what "climate forcing" is?

Shall I be the first to inform you? You're not going to like it.


.


UBdahMann,
If my experiment is tried and works then scientists might say it's molecules colliding with each other. This however would do 2 things. The first is that it would show that solar radiation is not necessary for atmospheric gases to occur.
The 2nd and probably more important is that CO2 is not the stable, never changing molecule it's claimed to be. This would mean that to maintain our ozone layer that we would need a miinimum of CO2 emissions.
Besides, if the experiment works then there are certain things I'd be able to be an advocate for.


Jim
16-06-2017 16:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: The first is that it would show that solar radiation is not necessary for atmospheric gases to occur.

Chemistry already tells us this.

However, chemistry also tells us that solar radiation is constantly creating ozone from existing O2 molecules. Solar UV energy splits O2 molecules into two separate oxygen atoms that each attaches to another O2 molecule, creating O3 ... but that existence is short-lived, i.e. additional UV solar energy causes O3 to lose an oxygen atom and returns to being O2 ... and the free oxygen atoms pair up to return to being O2 molecules.

This process is called the Chapman cycle and the good news is that all the work has been done for you:

http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_2.htm


James_ wrote: The 2nd and probably more important is that CO2 is not the stable, never changing molecule it's claimed to be.

You just mixed two separate concepts.

CO2 is very stable, but it certainly reacts chemically and changes, especially in plants.

James_ wrote: This would mean that to maintain our ozone layer that we would need a miinimum of CO2 emissions.

The ozone is constantly forming and dissociating, forming and dissociating. Review the Chapman Cycle. No CO2 is needed or even involved.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-06-2017 16:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: The first is that it would show that solar radiation is not necessary for atmospheric gases to occur.

Chemistry already tells us this.

However, chemistry also tells us that solar radiation is constantly creating ozone from existing O2 molecules. Solar UV energy splits O2 molecules into two separate oxygen atoms that each attaches to another O2 molecule, creating O3 ... but that existence is short-lived, i.e. additional UV solar energy causes O3 to lose an oxygen atom and returns to being O2 ... and the free oxygen atoms pair up to return to being O2 molecules.

This process is called the Chapman cycle and the good news is that all the work has been done for you:

http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_2.htm


James_ wrote: The 2nd and probably more important is that CO2 is not the stable, never changing molecule it's claimed to be.

You just mixed two separate concepts.

CO2 is very stable, but it certainly reacts chemically and changes, especially in plants.

James_ wrote: This would mean that to maintain our ozone layer that we would need a miinimum of CO2 emissions.

The ozone is constantly forming and dissociating, forming and dissociating. Review the Chapman Cycle. No CO2 is needed or even involved.


.


Interesting, you are allowed to post a link. However, as I mentioned, if my experiment is tried and is successful then it would show you are wrong. This is because you did not read the IPCC's report or pursue any of your own research/thoughts. That's what Into the Night states that he wants people to do yet he supports you when you do what he is against. That's funny. At the same time my experiment if successful would show where more research is needed. According to you, we have no need to do any further research.

And since you don't get it, my experiment would change the discussion of Climate Change for a few reasons. I'll list them.
1) It would make known that the IPCC knows we need CO2 in our atmosphere to
preserve the ozone layer

2) It would bring the importance of the ozone layer into the climate change
debate. An example is how important is ozone to life on our planet ?

3) Are higher levels of CO2 in ice core samples representative of a greater
difference in atmospheric temperature between the poles and the equator ?
An example is if it cools in the Arctic do CO2 levels rise in the Arctic even if the
temperature at the equator remains the same ?
If so then CO2 levels might signify cooling in ice core samples more than it
would warming in our atmosphere.

And as you just stated IBdaMann we have no need to do any further research that might help us to understand how our atmosphere works and how that can help us to better understand climate change.

As to your "Sun" question; when we have an Ice Age the mass in the Arctic is much greater while the mass of our oceans becomes less. There is something called Conservation of Angular Momentum. This principle would suggest that the Earth's spin or rotation would increase slightly while wobbling less. The over all net effect would be that it could move a small distance closer to the Sun. And it is this warming which could have precipitated the end of the last Ice Age. According to one ice core researcher it was the Earth's position which was closer to the Sun which allowed for our planet to start warming again. That would be the most likely way that the Sun has a significant effect on climate change.
Edited on 16-06-2017 16:52
16-06-2017 18:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: Interesting, you are allowed to post a link.

I offered it just for you. You are free to ignore it. I won't take it personally.


James_ wrote: However, as I mentioned, if my experiment is tried and is successful then it would show you are wrong.

You wouldn't be showing me to be in error. If you show the Chapman cycles to be in error then you will have falsified a science model and there might be a Nobel in it for you.

James_ wrote: This is because you did not read the IPCC's report or pursue any of your own research/thoughts.

I summarily dismiss anything from the IPCC. I wouldn't trust them to honestly tell me the time of day.

James_ wrote:According to you, we have no need to do any further research.

I said nothing of the sort. All I said was that Chapman cycles answer your specific question.

James_ wrote: 1) It would make known that the IPCC knows we need CO2 in our atmosphere to preserve the ozone layer

Good luck. Currently, chemistry says otherwise.

James_ wrote: 2) It would bring the importance of the ozone layer into the climate change debate. An example is how important is ozone to life on our planet ?

Wouldn't we have to formally and falsifiably define "climate" first?

James_ wrote:3) Are higher levels of CO2 in ice core samples representative of a greater difference in atmospheric temperature between the poles and the equator ?

Isn't the ice that comprises the samples sufficient testament to the temperature difference?

James_ wrote: As to your "Sun" question;

Which one? I have asked many.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-06-2017 14:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
IBdaMann,
I could post a link that suggests that your link is wrong. This is because it's to actual research while your link is based on mathematical modeling.
An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms. If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.
17-06-2017 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann,
I could post a link that suggests that your link is wrong. This is because it's to actual research while your link is based on mathematical modeling.
An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms. If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.


Computer modeling is manufacturing data. The 'mathematical' algorithms are based on random math formulas for political purposes.

The chemistry of ozone is simple and has been tested. That it can take place in the real ozone layer is not in dispute. That is not mathematical modeling. That is chemistry.

Depending on Holy Links to make your argument for you is only showing that you are not thinking for yourself. The internet is not an Oracle of Truth. You can't believe everything you see on it, especially from politically motivated groups like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, and Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia IS politically motivated for certain subjects including global warming and anything to do with ozone).


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2017 19:32
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann,
I could post a link that suggests that your link is wrong. This is because it's to actual research while your link is based on mathematical modeling.
An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms. If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.


Computer modeling is manufacturing data. The 'mathematical' algorithms are based on random math formulas for political purposes.

The chemistry of ozone is simple and has been tested. That it can take place in the real ozone layer is not in dispute. That is not mathematical modeling. That is chemistry.

Depending on Holy Links to make your argument for you is only showing that you are not thinking for yourself. The internet is not an Oracle of Truth. You can't believe everything you see on it, especially from politically motivated groups like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, and Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia IS politically motivated for certain subjects including global warming and anything to do with ozone).


When you say >> The internet is not an Oracle of Truth. << you should stay off of it. After all when you post on the internet you are a part of it and your statement would include you as well. And this means that you are no >> Oracle of Truth << either.
An example is when you say >> The chemistry of ozone is simple and has been tested. That it can take place in the real ozone layer is not in dispute. That is not mathematical modeling. That is chemistry. << then you go on to say >> Depending on Holy Links to make your argument for you is only showing that you are not thinking for yourself. <<. This means that if I accept IBdaMANN's link then I am thinking for myself according to you.


Jim
Edited on 17-06-2017 20:03
18-06-2017 04:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms.

1. They aren't computer models. They are computer programs.
2. All computer programs are mathematical algorithms.
3. Computer programs give the results they are programmed to give. Do you know what "predetermined conclusions" are?


James_ wrote: If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.

1. I accept the Chapman cycles, I don't support them.
2. The IPCC merits no support.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-06-2017 04:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: When you say >> The internet is not an Oracle of Truth. << you should stay off of it. ...

I have a better way to look at this.

You like to perform experiments. You like to follow the scientific method.


1. Get an oxygen (O2) tank.

2. Get a strong UV light source.

3. Have no CO2 around.

4. Get a container you can evacuate, fill with O2 to Ozone level pressure (Into the Night can give you a good value) and into which you can radiate your UV.

Your hypothesis would be that you expect no resulting O3 because there is no CO2 in the system.

My hypothesis would be that the UV light will dissociate some O2 molecules leaving free O atoms that form O3 with other O2 molecules with the help of that very same UV light.

5. Give your UV light a couple of hours to radiate through the O2 you put in the container. Check for the presence of O3.

If there is, you have your answer.

If there isn't any, you have your answer.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-06-2017 07:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms.

1. They aren't computer models. They are computer programs.
2. All computer programs are mathematical algorithms.
3. Computer programs give the results they are programmed to give. Do you know what "predetermined conclusions" are?


James_ wrote: If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.

1. I accept the Chapman cycles, I don't support them.
2. The IPCC merits no support.


.


Apparently you do not know the difference between programming and modeling. It is like you saying you accept the Chapman cycles as being right while you do not support their conclusions.
You're not getting stoned with Into The Night by any chance are you ? The things the two of you come up with make it seem like you want to be or would prefer a spiritual or metaphysical discussion rather than discussing science or how computer programs can do modeling. After all, a computer program uses algorithms to create computer generated models. How you and Into The Night don't get that I can't explain.
With someone like myself I would say better information is needed then more accurate modeling could be done.

Jim

p.s.,
IBdaMANN and Into The Night,
It is nice to see that the two of you have learned from the IPCC. They realized that they need to present an image of assuredness and certainty because they were debunking other IPCC scientists who issued a report stating that Global Warming had been paused for 15 years. Would provide the link but can't trust IPCC scientists who say Global Warming paused.
This is almost comical. IBdaMANN and Into The Night sound like the IPCC scientists who are willing to discredit scientists they work with. And if you two don't get it, heat from the sea floor is now being credited to CO2 as causing warming. :-)
Edited on 18-06-2017 08:14
18-06-2017 09:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
I hope no one reads this link. It may be necessary to copy and paste it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/#545934e2695e

p.s., IBdaMANN and Into the Night will probably say this is what they've been trying to get me to understand. That will be their own form of damage control. Kind of why I also have a thread about El Nino and Deep Faults. And there is a link to scientists who say the sea floor is releasing a lot of heat but needs more research.
As for me, might be time for me to take a break.
Edited on 18-06-2017 09:29
18-06-2017 15:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote: Apparently you do not know the difference between programming and modeling.

Apparently my understanding exceeds yours by orders of magnitude.

Clearly you don't even know the difference between a model and a computer program that implements a model. How do you even participate in a discussion?

The day you want to go toe-to-toe with me on modeling, please do not hesitate to let me know.

James_ wrote: After all, a computer program uses algorithms to create computer generated models.

You should have quit when you were only far behind. The above statement exposes your complete ignorance on the subject.

Humans develop models. The models include all of the designers' assumptions and depict the designers' predetermined conclusions. Humans code programs to implement models; those programs produce the "results" that were designed (predetermined) into the model.

Pick any part that confuses you and let's review.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-06-2017 15:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote:
I hope no one reads this link. It may be necessary to copy and paste it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/#545934e2695e

p.s., IBdaMANN and Into the Night will probably say this is what they've been trying to get me to understand. That will be their own form of damage control. Kind of why I also have a thread about El Nino and Deep Faults. And there is a link to scientists who say the sea floor is releasing a lot of heat but needs more research.
As for me, might be time for me to take a break.


I have no inclination to read about the IPCC. They are a Marxist political activist organization that is best ignored.

I simply dismiss anything from the IPCC. It's not like it's science or has anything to do with reality.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-06-2017 19:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann,
I could post a link that suggests that your link is wrong. This is because it's to actual research while your link is based on mathematical modeling.
An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms. If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.


Computer modeling is manufacturing data. The 'mathematical' algorithms are based on random math formulas for political purposes.

The chemistry of ozone is simple and has been tested. That it can take place in the real ozone layer is not in dispute. That is not mathematical modeling. That is chemistry.

Depending on Holy Links to make your argument for you is only showing that you are not thinking for yourself. The internet is not an Oracle of Truth. You can't believe everything you see on it, especially from politically motivated groups like the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, and Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia IS politically motivated for certain subjects including global warming and anything to do with ozone).


When you say >> The internet is not an Oracle of Truth. << you should stay off of it. After all when you post on the internet you are a part of it and your statement would include you as well. And this means that you are no >> Oracle of Truth << either.

That is correct. I expect you to do your own research to verify anything I say.
James_ wrote:
An example is when you say >> The chemistry of ozone is simple and has been tested.

It is.
James_ wrote:
That it can take place in the real ozone layer is not in dispute.

Is it for you? Do you not accept the Chapman cycle? Do you not accept the chemistry of ozone? Perhaps you should go study ozone some more for yourself.
James_ wrote:
That is not mathematical modeling. That is chemistry.

This is true. Math is one thing, chemistry is quite another. Are you trying to say they are the same thing???

I've seen quite a lot of attempts at redefinitions by the Church of Global Warming, but this one is a classic.

James_ wrote:
<< then you go on to say >> Depending on Holy Links to make your argument for you is only showing that you are not thinking for yourself. <<. This means that if I accept IBdaMANN's link then I am thinking for myself according to you.

Nope. I expect you to do your own study and research. Using Holy Links in place of an argument is always a sign that one is not thinking for themselves. Over dependence of such links has reached a point where it has become a religion in its own right.

A religion...any religion is based on one common thing: the circular argument. Every religion has some initial circular argument that the entire religion piles on to as a given. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

The Holy Link is treated as such. The initial circular argument of that religion is that the Holy Link is always right.

Instead, one should look for sound reasoning in any argument, regardless of its source. To depend on the Holy Link is a form of Bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2017 19:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms.

1. They aren't computer models. They are computer programs.
2. All computer programs are mathematical algorithms.
3. Computer programs give the results they are programmed to give. Do you know what "predetermined conclusions" are?


James_ wrote: If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.

1. I accept the Chapman cycles, I don't support them.
2. The IPCC merits no support.


.


Apparently you do not know the difference between programming and modeling.

Since I build instrumentation for a living, a lot of it using processors, I think I know the difference.
James_ wrote:
It is like you saying you accept the Chapman cycles as being right while you do not support their conclusions.

Perhaps IBdaMann can lead you through a treatise on 'falsifiability'.
James_ wrote:
...deleted insult stream... would prefer a spiritual or metaphysical discussion rather than discussing science or how computer programs can do modeling.

No, we prefer science. We also prefer mathematics. Computer programs don't 'do' modeling.
James_ wrote:
After all, a computer program uses algorithms

A computer program IS algorithms.
James_ wrote:
to create computer generated models.

The algorithms used come FROM the model, not the other way around.
James_ wrote:
How you and Into The Night don't get that I can't explain.

Computers are great at reproducing what can be done on paper and making it faster. They do not think for themselves (despite the claims by AI), and they do not do anything that couldn't be done on paper in the first place. To program a computer, you START with the model. If your model is faulty, your program will be faulty.

The computer isn't a magic hammer that will fix anything. It is a sequencing device, no more intelligent than your average washing machine timer.

James_ wrote:
With someone like myself I would say better information is needed then more accurate modeling could be done.

That can't come from the computer. It must come from the initial model the program is developed from.
James_ wrote:
IBdaMANN and Into The Night,
It is nice to see that the two of you have learned from the IPCC.

The only thing we've learned about the IPCC is how they manufacture data out of thick air for political reasons.
James_ wrote:
They realized that they need to present an image of assuredness and certainty because they were debunking other IPCC scientists who issued a report stating that Global Warming had been paused for 15 years. Would provide the link but can't trust IPCC scientists who say Global Warming paused.

It is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. This is a math problem. It cannot be solved by a computer to make it magickally accurate.
James_ wrote:
This is almost comical. IBdaMANN and Into The Night sound like the IPCC scientists who are willing to discredit scientists they work with.

Any scientist that uses bad math discredits themselves.
James_ wrote:
And if you two don't get it, heat from the sea floor is now being credited to CO2 as causing warming. :-)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
21-06-2017 15:05
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms.

1. They aren't computer models. They are computer programs.
2. All computer programs are mathematical algorithms.
3. Computer programs give the results they are programmed to give. Do you know what "predetermined conclusions" are?


James_ wrote: If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.

1. I accept the Chapman cycles, I don't support them.
2. The IPCC merits no support.


.


Apparently you do not know the difference between programming and modeling.

Since I build instrumentation for a living, a lot of it using processors, I think I know the difference.
James_ wrote:
It is like you saying you accept the Chapman cycles as being right while you do not support their conclusions.

Perhaps IBdaMann can lead you through a treatise on 'falsifiability'.
James_ wrote:
...deleted insult stream... would prefer a spiritual or metaphysical discussion rather than discussing science or how computer programs can do modeling.

No, we prefer science. We also prefer mathematics. Computer programs don't 'do' modeling.
James_ wrote:
After all, a computer program uses algorithms

A computer program IS algorithms.
James_ wrote:
to create computer generated models.

The algorithms used come FROM the model, not the other way around.
James_ wrote:
How you and Into The Night don't get that I can't explain.

Computers are great at reproducing what can be done on paper and making it faster. They do not think for themselves (despite the claims by AI), and they do not do anything that couldn't be done on paper in the first place. To program a computer, you START with the model. If your model is faulty, your program will be faulty.

The computer isn't a magic hammer that will fix anything. It is a sequencing device, no more intelligent than your average washing machine timer.

James_ wrote:
With someone like myself I would say better information is needed then more accurate modeling could be done.

That can't come from the computer. It must come from the initial model the program is developed from.
James_ wrote:
IBdaMANN and Into The Night,
It is nice to see that the two of you have learned from the IPCC.

The only thing we've learned about the IPCC is how they manufacture data out of thick air for political reasons.
James_ wrote:
They realized that they need to present an image of assuredness and certainty because they were debunking other IPCC scientists who issued a report stating that Global Warming had been paused for 15 years. Would provide the link but can't trust IPCC scientists who say Global Warming paused.

It is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. This is a math problem. It cannot be solved by a computer to make it magickally accurate.
James_ wrote:
This is almost comical. IBdaMANN and Into The Night sound like the IPCC scientists who are willing to discredit scientists they work with.

Any scientist that uses bad math discredits themselves.
James_ wrote:
And if you two don't get it, heat from the sea floor is now being credited to CO2 as causing warming. :-)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


You seem to dumb everything down. I do have a Holy link for you. It's a picture of my Bible opened. Myself, I think you are clueless. You do have one thing right though. Because you think that you think, you are. It must be lonely being you.

https://goo.gl/photos/xHmTf7VAVi5AUANb8
21-06-2017 17:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: An example of this is the IPCC which you disagree with uses computer modeling based on mathematical algorithms.

1. They aren't computer models. They are computer programs.
2. All computer programs are mathematical algorithms.
3. Computer programs give the results they are programmed to give. Do you know what "predetermined conclusions" are?


James_ wrote: If you support the Chapman cycle then you should also support the IPCC as well.

1. I accept the Chapman cycles, I don't support them.
2. The IPCC merits no support.


.


Apparently you do not know the difference between programming and modeling.

Since I build instrumentation for a living, a lot of it using processors, I think I know the difference.
James_ wrote:
It is like you saying you accept the Chapman cycles as being right while you do not support their conclusions.

Perhaps IBdaMann can lead you through a treatise on 'falsifiability'.
James_ wrote:
...deleted insult stream... would prefer a spiritual or metaphysical discussion rather than discussing science or how computer programs can do modeling.

No, we prefer science. We also prefer mathematics. Computer programs don't 'do' modeling.
James_ wrote:
After all, a computer program uses algorithms

A computer program IS algorithms.
James_ wrote:
to create computer generated models.

The algorithms used come FROM the model, not the other way around.
James_ wrote:
How you and Into The Night don't get that I can't explain.

Computers are great at reproducing what can be done on paper and making it faster. They do not think for themselves (despite the claims by AI), and they do not do anything that couldn't be done on paper in the first place. To program a computer, you START with the model. If your model is faulty, your program will be faulty.

The computer isn't a magic hammer that will fix anything. It is a sequencing device, no more intelligent than your average washing machine timer.

James_ wrote:
With someone like myself I would say better information is needed then more accurate modeling could be done.

That can't come from the computer. It must come from the initial model the program is developed from.
James_ wrote:
IBdaMANN and Into The Night,
It is nice to see that the two of you have learned from the IPCC.

The only thing we've learned about the IPCC is how they manufacture data out of thick air for political reasons.
James_ wrote:
They realized that they need to present an image of assuredness and certainty because they were debunking other IPCC scientists who issued a report stating that Global Warming had been paused for 15 years. Would provide the link but can't trust IPCC scientists who say Global Warming paused.

It is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. This is a math problem. It cannot be solved by a computer to make it magickally accurate.
James_ wrote:
This is almost comical. IBdaMANN and Into The Night sound like the IPCC scientists who are willing to discredit scientists they work with.

Any scientist that uses bad math discredits themselves.
James_ wrote:
And if you two don't get it, heat from the sea floor is now being credited to CO2 as causing warming. :-)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


You seem to dumb everything down. I do have a Holy link for you. It's a picture of my Bible opened. Myself, I think you are clueless. You do have one thing right though. Because you think that you think, you are. It must be lonely being you.

https://goo.gl/photos/xHmTf7VAVi5AUANb8


?? And what does any of this have to do with the Bible??


The Parrot Killer
21-06-2017 18:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
James_ wrote:You seem to dumb everything down. I do have a Holy link for you. It's a picture of my Bible opened. Myself, I think you are clueless. You do have one thing right though. Because you think that you think, you are. It must be lonely being you.

Look at all of that hatred you spew at someone who merely explained some science to you.

What a lonely ashsole you must be.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-06-2017 23:01
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
If my experiment is tried and works then scientists might say it's molecules colliding with each other. This however would do 2 things. The first is that it would show that solar radiation is not necessary for atmospheric gases to occur.
The 2nd and probably more important is that CO2 is not the stable, never changing molecule it's claimed to be. This would mean that to maintain our ozone layer that we would need a miinimum of CO2 emissions.
Besides, if the experiment works then there are certain things I'd be able to be an advocate for. Jim


At what point do you start making at least some sort of sense?

"Solar radiation is not necessary for atmospheric gases to occur"? What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

CO2 is a stable gas. Do you know what "stable" means? "Steady and not likely to move or change". CO2 can be broken into it's constituent components but it requires more than the normal amount of energy that's available.

CO2 is normally broken into carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis and not by sunlight in and of itself.

Ozone has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2. CO2 has no action in the formation of ozone. Solar radiation and oxygen are the ONLY requirements.

YOU have no "experiment" and if you are bugging some real scientist with the same sort of lunatic statements you make here he is only humoring you.
22-06-2017 00:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
CO2 is normally broken into carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis and not by sunlight in and of itself.


CO2 actually *does* break down into oxygen (and carbon monoxide) purely through the action of sunlight.

The reaction rate is not fast, though.


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2017 15:45
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
CO2 is normally broken into carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis and not by sunlight in and of itself.


CO2 actually *does* break down into oxygen (and carbon monoxide) purely through the action of sunlight.

The reaction rate is not fast, though.


And as usual you have a reference for that.
22-06-2017 18:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
CO2 is normally broken into carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis and not by sunlight in and of itself.


CO2 actually *does* break down into oxygen (and carbon monoxide) purely through the action of sunlight.

The reaction rate is not fast, though.


And as usual you have a reference for that.


I do not provide links. If you are interested, research it for yourself. I don't do your footwork for you.


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2017 21:09
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
CO2 is normally broken into carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis and not by sunlight in and of itself.


CO2 actually *does* break down into oxygen (and carbon monoxide) purely through the action of sunlight.

The reaction rate is not fast, though.


And as usual you have a reference for that.


I do not provide links. If you are interested, research it for yourself. I don't do your footwork for you.


That is because you do not have any. Do you think you're fooling anyone with stupid statements?

There is insufficient energy in sunlight to break CO2 down. While it would be possible in the outer VanAllen Belt there is no CO2 there.
22-06-2017 23:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
CO2 is normally broken into carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis and not by sunlight in and of itself.


CO2 actually *does* break down into oxygen (and carbon monoxide) purely through the action of sunlight.

The reaction rate is not fast, though.


And as usual you have a reference for that.


I do not provide links. If you are interested, research it for yourself. I don't do your footwork for you.


That is because you do not have any.

Argument of ignorance. You are free to look it up if you have a mind to. Apparently you don't. It's not my fault you're such a lazy ass.
Wake wrote:
Do you think you're fooling anyone with stupid statements?
Do you think you're fooling anyone with a fallacious statement? There ARE a lot of people here that would be fooled by such a statement.
Wake wrote:
There is insufficient energy in sunlight to break CO2 down.
There is all the energy we need. It happens. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
While it would be possible in the outer VanAllen Belt there is no CO2 there.

Not a requirement.

Visible light can break down 2CO2 into 2CO and O2.

It just has a very slow reaction rate.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2017 06:19
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:

CO2 actually *does* break down into oxygen (and carbon monoxide) purely through the action of sunlight.

The reaction rate is not fast, though.

Argument of ignorance. You are free to look it up if you have a mind to. Apparently you don't. It's not my fault you're such a lazy ass.

Visible light can break down 2CO2 into 2CO and O2.

It just has a very slow reaction rate.


What is "2CO2" and "2CO"? Why are you missing high school chemistry?
Edited on 23-06-2017 06:23
23-06-2017 06:56
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
[b]Wake wrote:

There is insufficient energy in sunlight to break CO2 down. While it would be possible in the outer VanAllen Belt there is no CO2 there.[/quote]

This is why my experiment would be important. If it works it would show that co2 can break down without solar radiation. So it might be a significant discovery. And since I like science that's about the only reason I need to see it tried. There is nothing that states that a water molecule can't generate enough kinetic energy by increasing it's velocity. And to increase it's velocity Conservation of Momentum allows for kinetic energy to be transferred from one gas to another.
I'm just not sure why people ignore the laws of physics when discussing physical science.
23-06-2017 07:43
James_
★★★☆☆
(659)
To give everyone a basic idea about Conservation of Momentum go plqy a game of pool. When the cue ball is hit it accelerates mv = ke. When the cue ball hits another ball it accelerates and the cue ball slows down. When velocity is transferred from one ball to another momentum is conserved.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0bBxmNeec
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=71Y37SCTNf0
23-06-2017 08:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

CO2 actually *does* break down into oxygen (and carbon monoxide) purely through the action of sunlight.

The reaction rate is not fast, though.

Argument of ignorance. You are free to look it up if you have a mind to. Apparently you don't. It's not my fault you're such a lazy ass.

Visible light can break down 2CO2 into 2CO and O2.

It just has a very slow reaction rate.


What is "2CO2" and "2CO"? Why are you missing high school chemistry?


If you don't understand that notation, you don't understand chemistry.

You just shown your illiteracy once again.

Another thing you should go read about.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2017 08:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
James_ wrote:
To give everyone a basic idea about Conservation of Momentum go plqy a game of pool. When the cue ball is hit it accelerates mv = ke. When the cue ball hits another ball it accelerates and the cue ball slows down. When velocity is transferred from one ball to another momentum is conserved.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0bBxmNeec
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=71Y37SCTNf0


May I suggest you study Newton's equation governing his laws of motion?


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2017 15:32
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
James_ wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:

There is insufficient energy in sunlight to break CO2 down. While it would be possible in the outer VanAllen Belt there is no CO2 there.


This is why my experiment would be important. If it works it would show that co2 can break down without solar radiation. So it might be a significant discovery. And since I like science that's about the only reason I need to see it tried. There is nothing that states that a water molecule can't generate enough kinetic energy by increasing it's velocity. And to increase it's velocity Conservation of Momentum allows for kinetic energy to be transferred from one gas to another.
I'm just not sure why people ignore the laws of physics when discussing physical science.[/quote]

What law of physics is it that CO2 turns over very rapidly in the atmosphere because of photosynthesis? That photosynthesis very rapidly reduced the atmosphere from ~40% to 350 ppm?

If there was any additional means of breaking CO2 down how was there such a level to begin with and how would CO2 not have fallen below 180 ppm and killed all life on this planet?




Join the debate CO2 and the Ozone Layer:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 and Global Warming712-11-2017 17:50
Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i5906-11-2017 19:51
Can we build an efficient hybrid solar-natural gas engine that emits no CO2?305-10-2017 02:36
CO2 Absorption Band Energy Depleted?2522-09-2017 17:50
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 20:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact