Carbon Question from mostly ignorant skeptic (me)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Carbon Question from mostly ignorant skeptic (me)

Carbon Question from mostly ignorant skeptic (me)30-01-2019 18:04
nursingninja ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon.
30-01-2019 18:49
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere appear to have increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution and reportedly most of this has been in the last 50 years. It is not clear that this is really true because the governmental agencies that have been reporting this have counterfeited data again and again. This has not been done because of scientific research but because they have to change these values to fit their narrative that they need more power and more money. There is no such thing as a Greenhouse gas. Increasing CO2 leads to vastly increasing plant growth. Since the largest portion of this is in the oceans it isn't visible save for the fact that there has been a gigantic increase in sea life which feeds off of these plants or the animals that feed off the plants. As temperatures return to "normal" from the little ice age which occurred between 1700 and 1850 the solubility of CO2 in seawater decreased and CO2 has been added to the atmosphere largely by that source. Man adds very little to the atmosphere in actual amounts. The other so-called "greenhouse gases" are very short lived in the atmosphere since they are chemically very reactive. Methane for instance is also called "natural gas" In the atmosphere it reacts with other elements and becomes CO2 and other compounds that are neutral. So this is nothing more than a blame game. The atmosphere returned to normal heat levels circa 1950 and the oceans are still returning. As they warm they expand and sea levels increase. This is not caused by melting glaciers though they add to it somewhat. CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the present humidity which has not changed at all since almost immediately after the end of the little ice age. The entire theory of man-made climate change is pure unadulterated hockum. Atmospheric temperatures have not changed as recorded by NASA weather satellite systems activated in 1978. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
30-01-2019 19:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution We actually have no idea. No one was measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations until 1958. The industrial revolution began around 1760. Even today, we cannot measure the global concentration of CO2, since CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and the dozen or so stations we have, all on the surface, are not adequate to determine this value. nursingninja wrote: #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas There is actually no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas, other than in people's minds. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. Theories of science, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, describe why the 'greenhouse' gas model doesn't work. nursingninja wrote: #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Same thing with water. It is not capable of warming the Earth as a 'greenhouse' gas either. nursingninja wrote: #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. There is no 'trigger point' and no 'domino effect'. The 'greenhouse' gas model doesn't work. It is not science or any theory of science. nursingninja wrote: Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? The question is actually using buzzwords that have no meaning ('climate change') and so can't be answered. There is not 'reversing' a buzzword. There is no need to reduce carbon either. Carbon is a fuel (we call it 'coal'). There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide either. It is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere and is necessary for plant growth. nursingninja wrote: Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. You understanding is based on the religious teachings from the Church of Global Warming. This religion denies science and mathematics. You must first leave this church and embrace science and mathematics. In summary, don't panic. There is nothing to fear from carbon dioxide or water vapor. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-01-2019 21:09
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	CO2 currently composes only approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere, about 400 ppm. I don't know the estimated surface area of the planet, and wouldn't know how to go about it. The planet isn't a perfect sphere, and there are mountains and craters, not to mention some pretty deep, man-made holes. I don't know the size of a single CO2 molecule. But, if you could put them all on a single layer, evenly space across the entire surface, there would be huge gaps in between. There just isn't enough CO2 floating around to do much of anything catastrophic, even it posses the claimed magic properties to warm the planet. Energy can't be created or destroyed, just changed from one for to another. That means there isn't any more heat, than was already was already here to begin with. With or without CO2, we'd still get the same energy from the Sun. Where's the warming now? People in the yankee states are literally freezing to death, well, only 4 reported so far. It's already a historic weather event, record cold temperatures across much of the continent. I haven't seen much about other countries, news is flooded with ours. Yeah, Google is a 'green' search engine these days. It's still the one I use, but it leans too far left on some topics I'm searching for. Will have to try some others sometime. Really need to search neutrally, leave politics out of learning stuff. Basically, Climate Change is an eco-terror attack on carbon-based energy use. The green, renewable, alternatives, are more expensive, less efficient, far less convenient. Solar and Wind take up a whole lot of real estate, and don't produce 24/7. We don't have batteries to store on a commercial scale. Converting DC current to AC, for distribution over long distance wastes a lot of energy. Transmitting DC of long distances, you lose through the resistance in the wire. Basically, a significant portion of what's produced, is simply wasted. Most individuals don't have enough land, to generate enough for personal use, so they would have to learn to use much less.
30-01-2019 21:17
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	nursingninja wrote: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. #1...Accepted values are about 285 and 410 parts per million (by volume). #2...Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Shortening carbon dioxide to carbon is OK sometimes, but there are folks who don't understand the difference. #3 Water vapor is a larger contributor to the total "greenhouse effect" than carbon dioxide, true. As an amplifier of the increased "greenhouse effect" caused by human caused atmospheric CO2 increase, water vapor is thought to roughly double it. #4 The domino effect analogy isn't that good. Picking up that first domino now would likely reverse or at least stop the process. Later, maybe not. As to whether or not our current level of atmospheric CO2 is enough to have set off the chain of changes that you refer to, it's not really known. Some think so. Some think we shouldn't take the risk. A 2000 ppm CO2 world would likely be different in ways we wouldn't like. Or rather, in ways our descendants wouldn't like.

30-01-2019 23:01
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: We actually have no idea. No one was measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations until 1958. The industrial revolution began around 1760. Even today, we cannot measure the global concentration of CO2, since CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and the dozen or so stations we have, all on the surface, are not adequate to determine this value. There is actually no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas, other than in people's minds. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. Theories of science, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, describe why the 'greenhouse' gas model doesn't work. Same thing with water. It is not capable of warming the Earth as a 'greenhouse' gas either. There is no 'trigger point' and no 'domino effect'. The 'greenhouse' gas model doesn't work. It is not science or any theory of science. The question is actually using buzzwords that have no meaning ('climate change') and so can't be answered. There is not 'reversing' a buzzword. There is no need to reduce carbon either. Carbon is a fuel (we call it 'coal'). There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide either. It is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere and is necessary for plant growth. You understanding is based on the religious teachings from the Church of Global Warming. This religion denies science and mathematics. You must first leave this church and embrace science and mathematics. In summary, don't panic. There is nothing to fear from carbon dioxide or water vapor. While there is minor differences in CO2 between say rain forest and the exhaust stack of a power plant, the weather systems are so efficient at mixing the air that the average CO2 is easily determined. NO ONE claims that the air is being WARMED by greenhouse gases anymore than they are claiming that a greenhouse does anything more than slow the release of the energy from the surface of the planet to the escape of that energy into outer space. Either you are completely ignorant of the English language or you simply lie about it - or you are too stupid to understand the processes being discussed. You should discontinue talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann law because you do not understand it. But I'm sure that you will continue pretending that you know what it means. The three forms of H2O absorb almost the entire spectrum of energy emitted by the Earth as well as lower level clouds absorbing a large part of the energy emitted by the Sun. No one is saying that water makes any heat so why do you continue to say such things? It is the low levels of atmospheric H2O that allow radiant energy from the Sun to make it entirely to the surface of the Earth or else Earth would be like Venus. The radiant energy absorbed by clouds converts radiant energy into molecular motion and thereby into conductive heat which moves at a tiny percentage of the radiant heat and hence slows the movement of heat through the atmosphere and eventually into open space. The speed of that motion of energy from the Earth's surface into outer space that has always been at question and which you are entirely unaware of. Your statements prove that you do not even understand simple physics or the laws of thermodynamics which you toss about so freely. You continue to publish rank ignorance and a total lack of understanding of science.
30-01-2019 23:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	still learning wrote: nursingninja wrote: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. #1...Accepted values are about 285 and 410 parts per million (by volume). Accepted by who? YOU are not the dictator that determines what is 'acceptable'. still learning wrote: #2...Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. still learning wrote: Shortening carbon dioxide to carbon is OK sometimes, No, they are completely different chemicals. still learning wrote: but there are folks who don't understand the difference. Nonsense statement. Calling something the same is not a difference. still learning wrote: #3 Water vapor is a larger contributor to the total "greenhouse effect" than carbon dioxide, true. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. Water is no different. still learning wrote: As an amplifier Buzzword fallacy. What is it 'amplifying'? still learning wrote: of the increased "greenhouse effect" caused by human caused atmospheric CO2 increase, water vapor is thought to roughly double it. Twice zero is still zero. still learning wrote: #4 The domino effect analogy isn't that good. Picking up that first domino now would likely reverse or at least stop the process. Later, maybe not. As to whether or not our current level of atmospheric CO2 is enough to have set off the chain of changes that you refer to, it's not really known. Some think so. Some think we shouldn't take the risk. Pascal's Wager fallacy. still learning wrote: A 2000 ppm CO2 world would likely be different in ways we wouldn't like. Extreme argument fallacy. You forget that increasing CO2 also increases a plant's ability to create food and release the excess as oxygen. still learning wrote: Or rather, in ways our descendants wouldn't like. Ah...the old "it's for the children" argument. Void argument fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-01-2019 23:39
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age.
30-01-2019 23:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: We actually have no idea. No one was measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations until 1958. The industrial revolution began around 1760. Even today, we cannot measure the global concentration of CO2, since CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and the dozen or so stations we have, all on the surface, are not adequate to determine this value. There is actually no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas, other than in people's minds. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. Theories of science, such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, describe why the 'greenhouse' gas model doesn't work. Same thing with water. It is not capable of warming the Earth as a 'greenhouse' gas either. There is no 'trigger point' and no 'domino effect'. The 'greenhouse' gas model doesn't work. It is not science or any theory of science. The question is actually using buzzwords that have no meaning ('climate change') and so can't be answered. There is not 'reversing' a buzzword. There is no need to reduce carbon either. Carbon is a fuel (we call it 'coal'). There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide either. It is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere and is necessary for plant growth. You understanding is based on the religious teachings from the Church of Global Warming. This religion denies science and mathematics. You must first leave this church and embrace science and mathematics. In summary, don't panic. There is nothing to fear from carbon dioxide or water vapor. While there is minor differences in CO2 between say rain forest and the exhaust stack of a power plant, There is no difference at all, Wake. CO2 is CO2. Wake wrote: the weather systems are so efficient at mixing the air that the average CO2 is easily determined. WRONG. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. You can even see it in the Mauna Loa data you depend on. Wake wrote: NO ONE claims that the air is being WARMED by greenhouse gases You do. So does the Church of Global Warming. Wake wrote: anymore than they are claiming that a greenhouse does anything more than slow the release of the energy from the surface of the planet to the escape of that energy into outer space. It doesn't. A greenhouse doesn't slow anything. It is not possible to trap or slow heat. Greenhouses reduce heat. Wake wrote: Either you are completely ignorant of the English language or you simply lie about it - or you are too stupid to understand the processes being discussed. Void argument fallacy. Insult fallacy. Wake wrote: You should discontinue talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann law because you do not understand it. I do understand it, Wake. YOU don't. Inversion fallacy. Wake wrote: But I'm sure that you will continue pretending that you know what it means. radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4. That's what it means, Wake. It also means that if temperature increases, radiance must also increase. If radiance is reduced (as in the model of the 'greenhouse' effect, which you are defending), temperature MUST decrease. It means you cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. It means there is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Wake wrote: The three forms of H2O absorb almost the entire spectrum of energy emitted by the Earth as well as lower level clouds absorbing a large part of the energy emitted by the Sun. Absorption by any gas or vapor of surface infrared light does not warm the Earth, Wake. The surface is COOLED by this process. It takes energy to emit light, Wake. Wake wrote: No one is saying that water makes any heat YOU are. Wake wrote: so why do you continue to say such things? I don't. YOU do. Wake wrote: It is the low levels of atmospheric H2O that allow radiant energy from the Sun to make it entirely to the surface of the Earth No, sunlight strikes the surface of the Earth, Wake. Even on cloudy days. Wake wrote: or else Earth would be like Venus. No, Venus is considerably closer to the Sun and has a much thicker atmosphere, Wake. It is more easily heated by the surface. Venus also has no vast areas of seas, which increases it's emissivity relative to Earth. Wake wrote: The radiant energy absorbed by clouds converts radiant energy into molecular motion and thereby into conductive heat which moves at a tiny percentage of the radiant heat and hence slows the movement of heat through the atmosphere and eventually into open space. It is not possible to slow or trap heat, Wake. Open space is not heated by conductive heating either, Wake. Wake wrote: The speed of that motion of energy from the Earth's surface into outer space that has always been at question and which you are entirely unaware of. Nope. It's easy. It's the speed of light. That speed does change due to the atmosphere, but it's not significant. Wake wrote: Your statements prove that you do not even understand simple physics or the laws of thermodynamics which you toss about so freely. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that doesn't understand them. Wake wrote: You continue to publish rank ignorance and a total lack of understanding of science. Buzzword fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-01-2019 23:59
nursingninja ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Thank you!
04-02-2019 20:39
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Tim - you made a slight math error 280 is 70% of 400 so the difference is an additive of 30%. It is presently claimed to be 424 but I haven't chased that down lately and it is betting so difficult to trust anything from NOAA or NASA that you have to triple check anything. We have to underscore that CO2 can act as an insolator at very oow levels but that the energy that it can slow is saturated at about 200 ppm. So additional quantities of CO2 have no energy to slow. It is more than unlikely. It is quite scientifically impossible. Unless there is some mechanism that can change higher and lower frequency IR to the absorption bands of CO2 and we haven't even had a suggestion of that.
04-02-2019 21:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Tim - you made a slight math error 280 is 70% of 400 so the difference is an additive of 30%. Math error, Wake. Tim's math is correct. I'll let him explain it to you. Wake wrote: It is presently claimed to be 424 but I haven't chased that down lately and it is betting so difficult to trust anything from NOAA or NASA that you have to triple check anything. Triple check against what? It's not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We don't have enough monitoring stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Wake wrote: We have to underscore that CO2 can act as an insolator at very oow levels Buzzword fallacy. CO2 doesn't 'isolate' anything. Wake wrote: but that the energy that it can slow You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: is saturated at about 200 ppm. There is no 'saturation level', Wake. Wake wrote: So additional quantities of CO2 have no energy to slow. You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: It is more than unlikely. It is quite scientifically impossible. Unless there is some mechanism that can change higher and lower frequency IR to the absorption bands of CO2 and we haven't even had a suggestion of that. Irrelevant. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth, Wake. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-02-2019 21:44
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Tim - you made a slight math error 280 is 70% of 400 so the difference is an additive of 30%. Math error, Wake. Tim's math is correct. I'll let him explain it to you. Wake wrote: It is presently claimed to be 424 but I haven't chased that down lately and it is betting so difficult to trust anything from NOAA or NASA that you have to triple check anything. Triple check against what? It's not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We don't have enough monitoring stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Wake wrote: We have to underscore that CO2 can act as an insolator at very oow levels Buzzword fallacy. CO2 doesn't 'isolate' anything. Wake wrote: but that the energy that it can slow You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: is saturated at about 200 ppm. There is no 'saturation level', Wake. Wake wrote: So additional quantities of CO2 have no energy to slow. You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: It is more than unlikely. It is quite scientifically impossible. Unless there is some mechanism that can change higher and lower frequency IR to the absorption bands of CO2 and we haven't even had a suggestion of that. Irrelevant. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth, Wake. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. The continued blustering ignorance from you is surprising no one.
04-02-2019 23:06
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Wake wrote:...shitty mathematics... I'll explain to you why your math is in error, Wake... I calculate rate changes on a fairly regular basis as a person who handles Accounts Receivable (incoming money) for a small business. This calculation is right in my knowledge wheelhouse, as I have an Associates Degree in Accounting, but do realize that credentials are meaningless on internet forums. Tim said "from 280ppm to 400ppm..." You simply calculated 280/400=70% and then calculated 100%-70%= a 30% change [or, in simpler notation, you calculated that 120ppm/400ppm = 30% ... Going from 280ppm to 400ppm is not a 30% increase in ppm, but merely calculating that 120 is 30% of 400... The 400ppm is NOT the baseline rate, Wake... the 280ppm is actually the baseline rate. This is how you properly calculate the rate change... (NEW rate) 400ppm - (OLD rate) 280ppm = 120ppm rate change (in this case, an increase). (rate change) 120ppm / (OLD rate) 280ppm = 42.857% increase (approximately 43%), just as Tim calculated. Tim and ITN are correct... You are wrong. Edited on 04-02-2019 23:18
04-02-2019 23:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Tim - you made a slight math error 280 is 70% of 400 so the difference is an additive of 30%. Math error, Wake. Tim's math is correct. I'll let him explain it to you. Wake wrote: It is presently claimed to be 424 but I haven't chased that down lately and it is betting so difficult to trust anything from NOAA or NASA that you have to triple check anything. Triple check against what? It's not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We don't have enough monitoring stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Wake wrote: We have to underscore that CO2 can act as an insolator at very oow levels Buzzword fallacy. CO2 doesn't 'isolate' anything. Wake wrote: but that the energy that it can slow You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: is saturated at about 200 ppm. There is no 'saturation level', Wake. Wake wrote: So additional quantities of CO2 have no energy to slow. You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: It is more than unlikely. It is quite scientifically impossible. Unless there is some mechanism that can change higher and lower frequency IR to the absorption bands of CO2 and we haven't even had a suggestion of that. Irrelevant. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth, Wake. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. The continued blustering ignorance from you is surprising no one. You need to get control of your anger, Wake. You can't just create energy out of nothing. Absorption of IR by CO2 is nothing more than the surface cooling itself by heating the air, just like it does with conduction. That does not warm the Earth, Wake. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

04-02-2019 23:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	gfm7175 wrote: Wake wrote:...shitty mathematics... I'll explain to you why your math is in error, Wake... I calculate rate changes on a fairly regular basis as a person who handles Accounts Receivable (incoming money) for a small business. This calculation is right in my knowledge wheelhouse, as I have an Associates Degree in Accounting, but do realize that credentials are meaningless on internet forums. Tim said "from 280ppm to 400ppm..." You simply calculated 280/400=70% and then calculated 100%-70%= a 30% change [or, in simpler notation, you calculated that 120ppm/400ppm = 30% ... Going from 280ppm to 400ppm is not a 30% increase in ppm, but merely calculating that 120 is 30% of 400... The 400ppm is NOT the baseline rate, Wake... the 280ppm is actually the baseline rate. This is how you properly calculate the rate change... (NEW rate) 400ppm - (OLD rate) 280ppm = 120ppm rate change (in this case, an increase). (rate change) 120ppm / (OLD rate) 280ppm = 42.857% increase (approximately 43%), just as Tim calculated. Tim and ITN are correct... You are wrong. Well described. This type of math error that Wake made is also known as a 'base rate fallacy' in logic. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-02-2019 23:49
04-02-2019 23:55
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	gfm7175 wrote: Wake wrote:...shitty mathematics... I'll explain to you why your math is in error, Wake... I calculate rate changes on a fairly regular basis as a person who handles Accounts Receivable (incoming money) for a small business. This calculation is right in my knowledge wheelhouse, as I have an Associates Degree in Accounting, but do realize that credentials are meaningless on internet forums. Tim said "from 280ppm to 400ppm..." You simply calculated 280/400=70% and then calculated 100%-70%= a 30% change [or, in simpler notation, you calculated that 120ppm/400ppm = 30% ... Going from 280ppm to 400ppm is not a 30% increase in ppm, but merely calculating that 120 is 30% of 400... The 400ppm is NOT the baseline rate, Wake... the 280ppm is actually the baseline rate. This is how you properly calculate the rate change... (NEW rate) 400ppm - (OLD rate) 280ppm = 120ppm rate change (in this case, an increase). (rate change) 120ppm / (OLD rate) 280ppm = 42.857% increase (approximately 43%), just as Tim calculated. Tim and ITN are correct... You are wrong. I'm not quite clear what you're saying - the difference between 280 and 400 is 30%. The CHANGE is 42%. We aren't interested in the change but in the difference before and after.
05-02-2019 00:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Wake wrote:...shitty mathematics... I'll explain to you why your math is in error, Wake... I calculate rate changes on a fairly regular basis as a person who handles Accounts Receivable (incoming money) for a small business. This calculation is right in my knowledge wheelhouse, as I have an Associates Degree in Accounting, but do realize that credentials are meaningless on internet forums. Tim said "from 280ppm to 400ppm..." You simply calculated 280/400=70% and then calculated 100%-70%= a 30% change [or, in simpler notation, you calculated that 120ppm/400ppm = 30% ... Going from 280ppm to 400ppm is not a 30% increase in ppm, but merely calculating that 120 is 30% of 400... The 400ppm is NOT the baseline rate, Wake... the 280ppm is actually the baseline rate. This is how you properly calculate the rate change... (NEW rate) 400ppm - (OLD rate) 280ppm = 120ppm rate change (in this case, an increase). (rate change) 120ppm / (OLD rate) 280ppm = 42.857% increase (approximately 43%), just as Tim calculated. Tim and ITN are correct... You are wrong. I'm not quite clear what you're saying - Not surprising. Your anger is still clouding your mind. Wake wrote: the difference between 280 and 400 is 30%. The CHANGE is 42%. We aren't interested in the change but in the difference before and after. Paradox, Wake. Which is it? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-02-2019 00:19
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Tim - you made a slight math error 280 is 70% of 400 so the difference is an additive of 30%. Math error, Wake. Tim's math is correct. I'll let him explain it to you. Wake wrote: It is presently claimed to be 424 but I haven't chased that down lately and it is betting so difficult to trust anything from NOAA or NASA that you have to triple check anything. Triple check against what? It's not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We don't have enough monitoring stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Wake wrote: We have to underscore that CO2 can act as an insolator at very oow levels Buzzword fallacy. CO2 doesn't 'isolate' anything. Wake wrote: but that the energy that it can slow You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: is saturated at about 200 ppm. There is no 'saturation level', Wake. Wake wrote: So additional quantities of CO2 have no energy to slow. You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: It is more than unlikely. It is quite scientifically impossible. Unless there is some mechanism that can change higher and lower frequency IR to the absorption bands of CO2 and we haven't even had a suggestion of that. Irrelevant. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth, Wake. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. The continued blustering ignorance from you is surprising no one. You need to get control of your anger, Wake. You can't just create energy out of nothing. Absorption of IR by CO2 is nothing more than the surface cooling itself by heating the air, just like it does with conduction. That does not warm the Earth, Wake. So the radiation of IR into CO2 is "just like" the surface heating the air. Right. But you said a couple of postings ago that IR cannot move via conduction and that I have to know the Stefan-Boltzmann theory which tells us all that it radiates only. I must be angry because I'm busting a gut at your postings.
05-02-2019 00:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Tim - you made a slight math error 280 is 70% of 400 so the difference is an additive of 30%. Math error, Wake. Tim's math is correct. I'll let him explain it to you. Wake wrote: It is presently claimed to be 424 but I haven't chased that down lately and it is betting so difficult to trust anything from NOAA or NASA that you have to triple check anything. Triple check against what? It's not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We don't have enough monitoring stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Wake wrote: We have to underscore that CO2 can act as an insolator at very oow levels Buzzword fallacy. CO2 doesn't 'isolate' anything. Wake wrote: but that the energy that it can slow You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: is saturated at about 200 ppm. There is no 'saturation level', Wake. Wake wrote: So additional quantities of CO2 have no energy to slow. You can't slow or trap heat, Wake. Wake wrote: It is more than unlikely. It is quite scientifically impossible. Unless there is some mechanism that can change higher and lower frequency IR to the absorption bands of CO2 and we haven't even had a suggestion of that. Irrelevant. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth, Wake. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. The continued blustering ignorance from you is surprising no one. You need to get control of your anger, Wake. You can't just create energy out of nothing. Absorption of IR by CO2 is nothing more than the surface cooling itself by heating the air, just like it does with conduction. That does not warm the Earth, Wake. So the radiation of IR into CO2 is "just like" the surface heating the air. Right. Functionally, yes. It doesn't matter if the air is heated by conduction or radiance. The surface heats the air, and cools itself in the process. Wake wrote: But you said a couple of postings ago that IR cannot move via conduction It doesn't. That's heating by radiance, Wake. Wake wrote: and that I have to know the Stefan-Boltzmann theory which tells us all that it radiates only. No, it doesn't. Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance, Wake. The Stefan-Boltzmann law only discusses radiance and temperature. It does not discuss heat at all. Wake wrote: I must be angry because I'm busting a gut at your postings. Ah. I didn't realize you were in so much pain. You can get treatments for hernias, Wake. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 05-02-2019 00:30
05-02-2019 20:09
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: nursingninja wrote: Greetings, I have a question that google is failing me on and thought I might be able to pitch this one to the internet. I claim no expertise on this topic, but the pat answers don't satisfy me anymore and I'd like to see climate change from all angles that I can. If this thread goes well I have a series of questions I'd like to pitch to this forum in the future if that's okay with you guys. Please correct any of the following statements if my understanding is false: #1 The level of carbon in our atmosphere has increased by roughly 100% since the industrial revolution From 280 to 400 and a bit ppm (parts per million) so 43% or so. #2 Carbon is a greenhouse gas Carbon dioxide. Probably. #3 Even at the levels we have now, carbon is not the most predominate green house gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a greater contributor to global warming than carbon is. Yep. #4 However, the increase in carbon in our atmosphere is the most likely root cause which set off a domino effect that has also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and a series of other changes, all of which contribute to climate change. Very unlikely but that is the narritive. Mostly hype. Question: If the merits of all four of those statements are true, then how is it that reducing carbon is thought to reverse climate change? Example, if I push a domino piece over a start the chain how is it thought that picking up the first piece that set it off is going to stop all of the others from tumbling over after it's half way down the line? My understanding from #4 is that carbon is only thought to have set in motion bigger pieces that now sum higher than carbon ever did in contributing to climate change. So logically (to my ignorant mind) it would seem to me that even if we invented magic and removed the carbon from the atmosphere it wouldn't matter. Bigger pieces have already been set in motion that would keep the domino effect in place with or without extra carbon. Don't worry. There is no domino effect. If there was such a situation the the earth would have boiled long ago. The "normal" temperature for earth is much hotter than it is now in this ice age. Tim - you made a slight math error 280 is 70% of 400 so the difference is an additive of 30%. It is presently claimed to be 424 but I haven't chased that down lately and it is betting so difficult to trust anything from NOAA or NASA that you have to triple check anything. We have to underscore that CO2 can act as an insolator at very oow levels but that the energy that it can slow is saturated at about 200 ppm. So additional quantities of CO2 have no energy to slow. It is more than unlikely. It is quite scientifically impossible. Unless there is some mechanism that can change higher and lower frequency IR to the absorption bands of CO2 and we haven't even had a suggestion of that. Today CO2 is listed as 409 ppm. https://www.co2.earth/ But the maths is what is the percentage increase? This is found by taking the increase ( I used 400 ppm I think) of 120 above the initial 280. Thus 43%. I don't know enough to argue about how CO2 interacts with IR etc. I just do the very simple stuff and look at actually what is supposed to happen after that. The results of looking at the next bit of the argument are that there is absolutely nothing to worry about for anybody.
05-02-2019 20:50
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: Today CO2 is listed as 409 ppm. https://www.co2.earth/ But the maths is what is the percentage increase? This is found by taking the increase ( I used 400 ppm I think) of 120 above the initial 280. Thus 43%. I don't know enough to argue about how CO2 interacts with IR etc. I just do the very simple stuff and look at actually what is supposed to happen after that. The results of looking at the next bit of the argument are that there is absolutely nothing to worry about for anybody. What it appears is that you are calculating the rate of change and not the simple change of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a scare tactic of the True Believers since insinuating that the levels are increasing so rapidly makes what is occurring seem dangerous. Nightmare seems to have fallen for it completely. However, what it causing the increase is indeterminant. With the recovery of temperatures from the little ice age CO2 becomes less soluble in the upper 200 meters of the ocean. So the oceans are dumping megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. So how is it that the rise in CO2 so perfectly matches the reported use of fossil fuels? Also -consider - There are about 156 million sq km of ocean. The top 200 meters are so have been heated by the return of normal conditions. This would normally give about 70 mm of sea level change all by itself. The studies are endless - especially when sea level rise from satellite measurements are something like an inch less than those on tidal gauges.
05-02-2019 21:30
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Wake... Tim, ITN, and I are correct regarding the math... you are wrong. Using the numbers Tim provided, that CO2 change would be a 43% increase, NOT a 30% increase.
05-02-2019 22:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today CO2 is listed as 409 ppm. https://www.co2.earth/ But the maths is what is the percentage increase? This is found by taking the increase ( I used 400 ppm I think) of 120 above the initial 280. Thus 43%. I don't know enough to argue about how CO2 interacts with IR etc. I just do the very simple stuff and look at actually what is supposed to happen after that. The results of looking at the next bit of the argument are that there is absolutely nothing to worry about for anybody. What it appears is that you are calculating the rate of change and not the simple change of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. No, Wake. He is calculating the change. The simple change. As a percentage. His calculations are correct. YOU still don't understand them. Wake wrote: This is a scare tactic of the True Believers since insinuating that the levels are increasing so rapidly makes what is occurring seem dangerous. The number is SMALLER than yours, Wake. Hardly a 'scare tactic'. Wake wrote: Nightmare seems to have fallen for it completely. Fallen for what? Mathematics? Yup. I sure have! YOU keep denying mathematics! Wake wrote: However, what it causing the increase is indeterminant. Nope. It is quite determinant, assuming the numbers from Mauna Loa, which is what he did. Wake wrote: With the recovery of temperatures from the little ice age What 'recovery'? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: CO2 becomes less soluble in the upper 200 meters of the ocean. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or it's oceans. Wake wrote: So the oceans are dumping megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. It's not possible to measure either the global oceanic or global atmospheric CO2 concentration. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in either. Wake wrote: So how is it that the rise in CO2 so perfectly matches the reported use of fossil fuels? It doesn't. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Wake wrote: Also -consider - There are about 156 million sq km of ocean. The top 200 meters are so have been heated by the return of normal conditions. Base rate fallacy. What are 'normal conditions'? Wake wrote: This would normally give about 70 mm of sea level change all by itself. Argument from randU. Assumption of any starting numbers for this calculate (which you probably didn't even do) are from a base rate fallacy. Wake wrote: The studies are endless Studies aren't data or science, Wake. Wake wrote: - especially when sea level rise from satellite measurements Satellites are incapable of measuring a global sea level, Wake. There is no valid reference point. Wake wrote: are something like an inch less than those on tidal gauges. Tidal gauges are not capable of measuring global sea level, Wake. There is no valid reference point. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-02-2019 22:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	gfm7175 wrote: Wake... Tim, ITN, and I are correct regarding the math... you are wrong. Using the numbers Tim provided, that CO2 change would be a 43% increase, NOT a 30% increase. Correct. Wake is still trying to justify his math error and his base rate fallacies related to it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 05-02-2019 22:18
05-02-2019 22:17
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	gfm7175 wrote: Wake... Tim, ITN, and I are correct regarding the math... you are wrong. Using the numbers Tim provided, that CO2 change would be a 43% increase, NOT a 30% increase. Let me start this from the beginning: 280 ppm is 70% of 400 ppm. The increase was 30% The percentage of CHANGE of these two numbers is 42.8% We don't CARE how much it has changed. We only care what it has become.
05-02-2019 22:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Wake... Tim, ITN, and I are correct regarding the math... you are wrong. Using the numbers Tim provided, that CO2 change would be a 43% increase, NOT a 30% increase. Let me start this from the beginning: 280 ppm is 70% of 400 ppm. The increase was 30% The percentage of CHANGE of these two numbers is 42.8% We don't CARE how much it has changed. We only care what it has become. We??? It doesn't matter what it has become. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth, Wake. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 05-02-2019 22:22
05-02-2019 22:56
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Wake wrote: Let me start this from the beginning: Yes, let's walk through this slowly, for Wake's sake... Wake wrote: 280 ppm is 70% of 400 ppm. Correct. Wake wrote: The increase was 30% No, it was 42.9% Wake wrote: The percentage of CHANGE of these two numbers is 42.8% Actually, it would be 42.9%, with proper rounding to the tenths place. Wake wrote: We don't CARE how much it has changed. No? Wake wrote: We only care what it has become. I'm not sure why treating 400ppm as a whole "piece of pie" would mean anything... I would think that calculating the rate change would hold more meaning, however, in this case it still wouldn't since CO2 is not distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. We don't know CO2 levels in parts of the atmosphere which aren't being measured...
06-02-2019 02:05
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	gfm7175 wrote: I'm not sure why treating 400ppm as a whole "piece of pie" would mean anything... I would think that calculating the rate change would hold more meaning, however, in this case it still wouldn't since CO2 is not distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. We don't know CO2 levels in parts of the atmosphere which aren't being measured... Firstly because we don't have any idea of how we got from 280 to 409 ppm. If we look at the amount of CO2 that should have washed out of the warming oceans it is about three times as much as we are seeing. What's more, the fact that the various "studies" show an almost perfect match between the various methods used to calculate what man's supposed contributions to CO2 growth is should make anyone suspicious about whether these numbers haven't been tampered with. So "rate of change" is meaningless and we only know what the present level is. Or at least think we do because even that is being questioned now. I think I have explained to you that CO2 washes in and out of water with temperature variations. It also pretty much follows atmospheric CO2 because of that. Or more accurately we haven't any idea of what the RATIO of CO2 in the atmosphere is compared to that of the Ice Core research. So CO2 of 280 ppm are perhaps the most unproven fact we have. We have only recently decided to monitor CO2 and the actual changes we have seen are relatively small. We also know the results of Plant Stomata research has shown 20-40% higher levels of CO2 than the Ice Core research has. Here's something about that - in order to do plant stomata research you have to have fossilized leaves. In order to have fossilized leaves you have to have access to an area that was so heavily wooded that you had either thick forest or even Rain Forest so that the leaves and timber would be buried rapidly enough that it didn't decompose. In such an area there is heavy competition for the available CO2. This means that plants grow more stomata then we see in modern plants where the forest is much more open. They should probably do a study in deep rain forest to check exactly how much more stomata are grown for any specific levels of open atmosphere CO2. So at the levels of CO2 that would show X number of stomata these fossil plants will show a larger amount and that would be interpretted as much lower lower levels of CO2 than there actually was. So - ice core show very low levels and we do not know the ratio of difference between the CO2 in the ice cores and that in the open atmosphere. Plant stomata research shows significantly more CO2 than the ice cores and that research is no doubt tainted as well. So talking about the CHANGE in CO2 cannot mean anything because we are using false data of atmospheric CO2. We know what the levels presently are and we can use that 280 ppm for nothing more than saying that it is 30% less than our present levels are. At one time of another I calculated how far apart molecules of CO2 are. It goes something like this - there are 3 x 10^22 molecules of air per cubic meter. CO2 composes .04% of that or 12 x 10^16. That means that there is only 1 out of every 2500 molecules that is CO2 and that is damned rare. Most especially when the efficiency of plant stomata is pretty low. They have to almost have a CO2 molecule stuffed down their throats in order to "catch" it. When you are reading the so-called "scientific" research on these things you have to keep a skepticism so overwhelming that throwing numbers around like you do rate of change is doing nothing but painting a barn orange. Edited on 06-02-2019 02:10
06-02-2019 07:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I'm not sure why treating 400ppm as a whole "piece of pie" would mean anything... I would think that calculating the rate change would hold more meaning, however, in this case it still wouldn't since CO2 is not distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. We don't know CO2 levels in parts of the atmosphere which aren't being measured... Firstly because we don't have any idea of how we got from 280 to 409 ppm. Who cares? Just the Church of Global Warming. Wake wrote: If we look at the amount of CO2 that should have washed out of the warming oceans CO2 doesn't 'wash' out of anything, Wake. It's not dirt. Wake wrote: it is about three times as much as we are seeing. It is not possible to measure the global oceanic or the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. Wake wrote: What's more, the fact that the various "studies" show an almost perfect match between the various methods used to calculate what man's supposed contributions to CO2 growth is should make anyone suspicious about whether these numbers haven't been tampered with. You can't tamper with random numbers, Wake. They're still random. Wake wrote: So "rate of change" is meaningless Base rate fallacy. Still due to your math error. Wake wrote: and we only know what the present level is. No, we don't. It's not possible to measure global CO2 content. Wake wrote: I think I have explained to you that CO2 washes in and out of water with temperature variations. It's not dirt, Wake. Wake wrote: It also pretty much follows atmospheric CO2 because of that. Who knows? It's not possible to measure global oceanic or global atmospheric CO2 concentration. Generally, CO2 concentrations in water follows that of the atmosphere in contact with the water. The water is nowhere near saturation levels of CO2 at 0.04%, the number reported by Mauna Loa. Wake wrote: Or more accurately we haven't any idea of what the RATIO of CO2 in the atmosphere is compared to that of the Ice Core research. Ice cores do not indicate CO2 content. Ice is permeable to CO2. Wake wrote: So CO2 of 280 ppm are perhaps the most unproven fact we have. Not a fact. Learn what a fact is. Wake wrote: We have only recently decided to monitor CO2 We cannot monitor global CO2 content. There are not enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed. Wake wrote: and the actual changes we have seen are relatively small. We have not seen them. There is no data. Wake wrote: We also know the results of Plant Stomata research has shown 20-40% higher levels of CO2 than the Ice Core research has. Doesn't show CO2, Wake. Wake wrote: Here's something about that - in order to do plant stomata research you have to have fossilized leaves. In order to have fossilized leaves you have to have access to an area that was so heavily wooded that you had either thick forest or even Rain Forest so that the leaves and timber would be buried rapidly enough that it didn't decompose. Irrelevant. Wake wrote: In such an area there is heavy competition for the available CO2. How do you know? Were you there? Wake wrote: This means that plants grow more stomata then we see in modern plants where the forest is much more open. How do you know? Were you there? Wake wrote: They should probably do a study in deep rain forest to check exactly how much more stomata are grown for any specific levels of open atmosphere CO2. Irrelevant. Ice cores do not show CO2 content. Ice is premeable to CO2. Wake wrote: So at the levels of CO2 that would show X number of stomata these fossil plants will show a larger amount and that would be interpretted as much lower lower levels of CO2 than there actually was. Non-sequiter fallacy. Wake wrote: So - ice core show very low levels and we do not know the ratio of difference between the CO2 in the ice cores and that in the open atmosphere. Because ice is premeable to CO2, Wake. Wake wrote: Plant stomata research shows significantly more CO2 than the ice cores and that research is no doubt tainted as well. No, they don't. They do not indicate CO2 concentration. Wake wrote: So talking about the CHANGE in CO2 cannot mean anything because we are using false data of atmospheric CO2. Math error, Wake. Base rate fallacy. Wake wrote: We know what the levels presently are No, you don't. There is no data for global Co2 concentrations. Wake wrote: and we can use that 280 ppm That's ONE stations...Mauna Loa. That's the number Tim used. Wake wrote: for nothing more than saying that it is 30% less than our present levels are. Math error. Base rate fallacy. Wake wrote: At one time of another I calculated how far apart molecules of CO2 are. Not possible. You don't know where the CO2 molecules actually are. Wake wrote: It goes something like this - there are 3 x 10^22 molecules of air per cubic meter. CO2 composes .04% of that or 12 x 10^16. That means that there is only 1 out of every 2500 molecules that is CO2 and that is damned rare. Does not describe distance between any two molecules of CO2. Two of them could be right next to each other. Wake wrote: Most especially when the efficiency of plant stomata is pretty low. Void comparison. Meaningless. Wake wrote: They have to almost have a CO2 molecule stuffed down their throats in order to "catch" it. No one is stuffing CO2 molecules down a plant's throat. Wake wrote: When you are reading the so-called "scientific" research There is no such thing as 'scientific' research. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Wake wrote: on these things you have to keep a skepticism so overwhelming that throwing numbers around like you do rate of change is doing nothing but painting a barn orange. Tim's math is correct. Yours is wrong. He is not throwing numbers around. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. Baserate fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

06-02-2019 16:49
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Parrotface - Did anyone ask your ridiculous opinion? Tell us - if you're working how is it that you post 24 hours a day? If you aren't working we very well know why.
06-02-2019 19:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Parrotface - Did anyone ask your ridiculous opinion? Some people do. You didn't. I provided it anyway. YOU don't dictate who can make an opinion, Wake. You are not the king, and you are not the forum owner. Wake wrote: Tell us - if you're working how is it that you post 24 hours a day? I don't, Wake. It just seems to you that I do because I'm such an irritant to you. I have no problem with that. Wake wrote: If you aren't working we very well know why. I am, Wake. I own my own business. YOU don't get to dictate where anyone may post, or when anyone may post. You are not the king. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-02-2019 20:06
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Wake is getting quite angry again I see...

Join the debate Carbon Question from mostly ignorant skeptic (me):

Threads	Replies	Last post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	839	26-04-2024 09:44
12V DC motor question	24	18-02-2024 23:24
Just one simple question	39	25-10-2023 02:31
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon	30	06-07-2023 23:51