Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
RE: Tundra release of carbon dioxide and methane19-03-2022 01:35
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
The increased release of carbon dioxide and methane from tundra are both positive feedbacks to increased temperature.

The carbon dioxide is from aerobic respiration of organic carbon in soil organic matter by microorganisms.

The methane needs more than a sentence, but it is pretty straightforward that warming temperatures are capable of melting ice.

Positive feedback from anthropogenic global warming on natural ecosystem release of greenhouse gases is a real thing. Honest.

I won't bother with an "unambiguous definition for "feedback" because everyone with half a brain already knows what it means.

They didn't take the required preparatory courses first, and should not have enrolled in this class.

They are not allowed to interrupt the presentation with absurd demands.

There should be some way to kick them out of the classroom, but...

That's the downside of an unmoderated forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
The warming tundra is a double whammy.
I just used that as an example of "positive"? feedback where CO2 causing warming is required. It's an indirect feedback.

Most feedback is "negative"? right?

Like if you put more CO2 in the air the oceans will absorb more, reducing the CO2 in the air. negative feedback

If an object gets hotter it releases that energy even fast, again negative feedback.

I'm wondering if CO2 has any positive feedback that doesn't require warming as the middle step (that you can think of).
19-03-2022 01:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
The warming tundra is a double whammy.

What warming tundra?
sealover wrote:
An enormous reservoir, teratons, of organic carbon is becoming warm enough to decompose.

Carbon is not organic and does not decompose.
sealover wrote:
A little deeper is an enormous reservoir of methane locked in melting ice.

Cool. Fuel.


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
19-03-2022 01:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
The warming tundra is a double whammy.
I just used that as an example of "positive"? feedback where CO2 causing warming is required. It's an indirect feedback.

Most feedback is "negative"? right?

Like if you put more CO2 in the air the oceans will absorb more, reducing the CO2 in the air. negative feedback

So...more CO2 in the air means less CO2 in the air. Gotit.

tmiddles wrote:
If an object gets hotter it releases that energy even fast, again negative feedback.

So...hotter is the same as cooler. Gotit.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm wondering if CO2 has any positive feedback that doesn't require warming as the middle step (that you can think of).

Buzzword fallacy. Void question.


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
19-03-2022 02:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
The increased release of carbon dioxide and methane from tundra are both positive feedbacks to increased temperature.
Yes but it's INDIRECT. CO2 causes warming, warming causes thawing, thawing releases CO2.

Fire has positive feedback that is direct. Fire heats things up, more fire.

Very few things truly "snow ball" or they would blow up right?

So let's stipulate that we can't think of any examples of CO2 resulting in more CO2 in a manner that doesn't require the mean temp at the surface to increase (global warming).

You'd agree that while there is AGW, human cause global warming, there is also Non-human global warming, right?

Like we believe that around 12,000 years ago when we had mammoths and the globes surface was roughly 7C cooler than it is now.

So over the past 12,000 years it has gotten 7C warmer WITHOUT human's playing a role.

So lets skip to my question:
I think there is a false implication from the "double wammy" feedback that this will spiral out of control on it's own. But that doesn't happen with natural warming either.

So since natural warming and cooling "settle down" and don't actually spiral out of control, wouldn't it be likely AGW would too?


sealover wrote:They are not allowed to interrupt ...
Seriously ignore ITN. He won't actually discuss anything he's practically a bot.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
RE: Tundra does not hold trapped CO219-03-2022 03:12
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases from two different carbon-containing sources in the tundra.

There is an enormous reservoir of trapped methane beneath the tundra.

When the ice melts, the carbon in the methane is released in a chemical form only slightly different than the form in which it was trapped.

Methane is a greenhouse gas about 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

When the tundra warms up, it also releases carbon as carbon dioxide.

This carbon in this carbon dioxide is in chemical form VERY different than the one in which it was trapped.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the tundra originate from ORGANIC carbon in the tundra. Organic carbon only counts as greenhouse gas when it's methane.

Well, we could technical about some of the minor greenhouse gases which also contain carbon in organic, rather than inorganic form.

Inorganic carbon is carbon that has been oxidized and has oxygen attached.

Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the warming tundra result from organic carbon oxidizing to inorganic carbon, through aerobic respiration in microbial decomposition.

It's okay if you didn't get all that the first time. You'll be hearing about it again.

=============================================

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
The increased release of carbon dioxide and methane from tundra are both positive feedbacks to increased temperature.
Yes but it's INDIRECT. CO2 causes warming, warming causes thawing, thawing releases CO2.

Fire has positive feedback that is direct. Fire heats things up, more fire.

Very few things truly "snow ball" or they would blow up right?

So let's stipulate that we can't think of any examples of CO2 resulting in more CO2 in a manner that doesn't require the mean temp at the surface to increase (global warming).

You'd agree that while there is AGW, human cause global warming, there is also Non-human global warming, right?

Like we believe that around 12,000 years ago when we had mammoths and the globes surface was roughly 7C cooler than it is now.

So over the past 12,000 years it has gotten 7C warmer WITHOUT human's playing a role.

So lets skip to my question:
I think there is a false implication from the "double wammy" feedback that this will spiral out of control on it's own. But that doesn't happen with natural warming either.

So since natural warming and cooling "settle down" and don't actually spiral out of control, wouldn't it be likely AGW would too?


sealover wrote:They are not allowed to interrupt ...
Seriously ignore ITN. He won't actually discuss anything he's practically a bot.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
19-03-2022 03:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:The increased release of carbon dioxide and methane from tundra are both positive feedbacks to increased temperature.
Yes but it's INDIRECT. CO2 causes warming, warming causes thawing, thawing releases CO2.

How does CO2 do this warming exactly?

What do you mean by "warming", exactly? Is that an increase in the average global temperature (violation of the 1st LoT) or is it simply an increase in the temperature of the very bottom of the atmosphere only (violation of the 2nd LoT)? What does it mean specifically and how does that work?

tmiddles wrote:Very few things truly "snow ball" or they would blow up right?

Isn't Venus on the cusp of "blowing up" because of its "runaway greenhouse effect" because of its vast quantities of CO2 that do so much of the warming that you are going to specify what it means and how it works?

tmiddles wrote:So let's stipulate that we can't think of any examples of CO2 resulting in more CO2 in a manner that doesn't require the mean temp at the surface to increase (global warming).

The entire globe or only the bottom of the atmosphere?

tmiddles wrote:You'd agree that while there is AGW, human cause global warming, there is also Non-human global warming, right?

"AGW" and "human-caused" are just two of the many terms that have never been unambiguously defined. If seal over answers your question, I'll have to ask how he knows what answer to give ... unless you and he attend the same Climate Change church services.

tmiddles wrote:Like we believe that around 12,000 years ago when we had mammoths and the globes surface was roughly 7C cooler than it is now.

Well, that's because 12,000 years ago we had networks of billions upon billions of evenly spaced hyper-accurate synchronized thermometers feeding Big-Data in the cloud, so we were able to capture valid datasets that enabled the calculation of the earth's temperature to within a usable margin of error. It's too bad that we lost all that technology when they decided to relocate the equipment by shipping it on the Titanic. Very unfortunate.

tmiddles wrote:So over the past 12,000 years it has gotten 7C warmer WITHOUT human's playing a role.

Remind me again how we accurately compute the change in average global temperature to within a usable margin of error. Tree rings, you say? Divining moss growth? From ice cores in one spot?

Fascinating!

tmiddles wrote:So lets skip to my question:

Oh wow! You are going to ask seal over a question. I want to see this.

tmiddles wrote:I think there is a false implication from the "double wammy" feedback that this will spiral out of control on it's own. But that doesn't happen with natural warming either.

Are you implying that nature typically doesn't violate the 2nd LoT? Hmmm. That's a novel position.

tmiddles wrote:So since natural warming and cooling "settle down" and don't actually spiral out of control, wouldn't it be likely AGW would too?

Is AGW related to space heaters?

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:They are not allowed to interrupt ...
Seriously ignore ITN. He won't actually discuss anything he's practically a bot.

I know, tell me about it. Have you noticed Into the Night's blatant double standard? It's perfectly OK for his religion to have miracles that violate thermodynamics but the moment a gentle, mild-mannered warmizombie who cares so much about saving our planet visits this site and makes just one mention of feedbacks, suddenly he's all "Paradox! Paradox! You can't claim miracles and call them science at the same time! You're irrational!" I mean, who does he think he is?
Attached image:

19-03-2022 05:47
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
I really don't get why a warmer climate, with more CO2 is scary-bad. I wasn't born with a thick covering of fur, so a warmer climate is really nice, less clothes required. Plants like a warmer climate too, and lots of CO2. Faster growing plants, longer growing season, more fresh, healthy food.

You would need to hide your morbidly-obese body, if you kicked your addiction to chemical-packed processed foods. Healthy, natural, fresh foods, promote a healthy body. You would need a fistful of medications, to exist, and whine about other people enjoying the fruits of technology, industry, innovations. Just because you are ashamed of your disgusting unhealthy, physical appearance. But, fixing the climate, is going to crash the economy, and industry. Your processed food choices will be reduced to government rationed Soylent Green, and you'll slim down anyway, but doubt you'll be any healthier, or happier.

There is a much larger margin of error, than the predicted warming, making it a faith-based, political issue, not a crisis. You can throw out all the catch phrases, buzzwords, an fear mongering crap you want. The math fails at the margin of error, for the data set being used. There is no positive proof mankind had anything to do with global warming. It freezes every winter (well, not here in Florida), but it thaws out in the spring, gets warmer in the summer. Ice age was just a really long winter. We went through a long spring, and summer is coning. Just how the planet spins. Not surprising, nothing to fear. Well, except those that don't fit summer clothing well...
RE: Another Go Fund Me Pitch19-03-2022 05:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Here's another Go Fund Me pitch.

What if someone actually wrote a manual for troll-infested website vermin eradication.

I'll bet there is someone who has those kind of writing skills.

I'll bet there a lot of donors who would support it.

Cull out from this wealth of material the information you think would make a good manual.

At least for the unmoderated websites whose name suggests someone who cares about climate change could find something of value.


















































































HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't get why a warmer climate, with more CO2 is scary-bad. I wasn't born with a thick covering of fur, so a warmer climate is really nice, less clothes required. Plants like a warmer climate too, and lots of CO2. Faster growing plants, longer growing season, more fresh, healthy food.

You would need to hide your morbidly-obese body, if you kicked your addiction to chemical-packed processed foods. Healthy, natural, fresh foods, promote a healthy body. You would need a fistful of medications, to exist, and whine about other people enjoying the fruits of technology, industry, innovations. Just because you are ashamed of your disgusting unhealthy, physical appearance. But, fixing the climate, is going to crash the economy, and industry. Your processed food choices will be reduced to government rationed Soylent Green, and you'll slim down anyway, but doubt you'll be any healthier, or happier.

There is a much larger margin of error, than the predicted warming, making it a faith-based, political issue, not a crisis. You can throw out all the catch phrases, buzzwords, an fear mongering crap you want. The math fails at the margin of error, for the data set being used. There is no positive proof mankind had anything to do with global warming. It freezes every winter (well, not here in Florida), but it thaws out in the spring, gets warmer in the summer. Ice age was just a really long winter. We went through a long spring, and summer is coning. Just how the planet spins. Not surprising, nothing to fear. Well, except those that don't fit summer clothing well...
19-03-2022 07:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
seal over wrote:Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases from two different carbon-containing sources in the tundra.

Now this is pure, unadulterated, religious doctrine.

Something undefined causes tundra to "release" two different carbon-containing undefined buzzwords in the tundra. Hallelujiah! Amen, brother!

seal over wrote:There is an enormous reservoir of trapped methane beneath the tundra.

Is there methane beneath the tundra where there is no reservoir? How do you know where the reservoir is? Is it something that we just know? How big is "huge" exactly, in the context of a reservoir?

seal over wrote:When the ice melts, the carbon in the methane is released in a chemical form only slightly different than the form in which it was trapped.

Did you mean to write that the methane is released in a biogeochemical form only slightly different from the form in which it was trapped?

seal over wrote:Methane is a greenhouse gas about 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

So we're back to some undefined buzzwords being more powerful than others.

How do you measure the power of one of these undefined buzzwords? Can you show me how I can calculate that "20 times" figure? I'd like to see that. I'd like to work through that calculation by hand just to get a feel for the process.

seal over wrote:When the tundra warms up, it also releases carbon as carbon dioxide.

So no releasing diamonds or soot or pencil lead?

seal over wrote:This carbon in this carbon dioxide is in chemical form VERY different than the one in which it was trapped. Carbon dioxide emissions from the tundra originate from ORGANIC carbon in the tundra. Organic carbon only counts as greenhouse gas when it's methane.

You have me at a disadvantage. I never took that biogeochemistry course that explains in detail how to read the SOURCE data tags on the carbon molecules to determine their origins. I knew I shouldn't have opted for "analysis of algorithms" but you know that hindsight is always 20/20!
RE: The good part is that they won't have to see this19-03-2022 07:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
The good part is that they won't have to see this.

Or ANY of your shit.

Except for your gemstone quotes, properly attributed.

Perhaps you are unaware that the option exists on this website for viewers to simply click "sealover" to find my posts without ever seeing ANY of yours.


















IBdaMann wrote:
seal over wrote:Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases from two different carbon-containing sources in the tundra.

Now this is pure, unadulterated, religious doctrine.

Something undefined causes tundra to "release" two different carbon-containing undefined buzzwords in the tundra. Hallelujiah! Amen, brother!

seal over wrote:There is an enormous reservoir of trapped methane beneath the tundra.

Is there methane beneath the tundra where there is no reservoir? How do you know where the reservoir is? Is it something that we just know? How big is "huge" exactly, in the context of a reservoir?

seal over wrote:When the ice melts, the carbon in the methane is released in a chemical form only slightly different than the form in which it was trapped.

Did you mean to write that the methane is released in a biogeochemical form only slightly different from the form in which it was trapped?

seal over wrote:Methane is a greenhouse gas about 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

So we're back to some undefined buzzwords being more powerful than others.

How do you measure the power of one of these undefined buzzwords? Can you show me how I can calculate that "20 times" figure? I'd like to see that. I'd like to work through that calculation by hand just to get a feel for the process.

seal over wrote:When the tundra warms up, it also releases carbon as carbon dioxide.

So no releasing diamonds or soot or pencil lead?

seal over wrote:This carbon in this carbon dioxide is in chemical form VERY different than the one in which it was trapped. Carbon dioxide emissions from the tundra originate from ORGANIC carbon in the tundra. Organic carbon only counts as greenhouse gas when it's methane.

You have me at a disadvantage. I never took that biogeochemistry course that explains in detail how to read the SOURCE data tags on the carbon molecules to determine their origins. I knew I shouldn't have opted for "analysis of algorithms" but you know that hindsight is always 20/20!
19-03-2022 11:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases ...

And there was warming 100 years ago correct? And 200, and 500 and 1000 and 5000 years ago right?

Hasn't there been "warming" for the past 12,000 years?

There would have been frozen Tundra further south 5000 years ago that as we thawed out from the last ice age would have done everything you've described right?

So the question is why is it a big deal now if it's always part of warming. Granted we're talking about the prospect of a unique EXTRA warming due to human activity, but the resulting effects wouldn't be any different in type from what happens with "normal" warming.

Basically the issue I have is that there never seems to be a description of the "natural" and the AGW. Not that I know we have any natural warming now, maybe we have a natural cooling in the mean temp. But do you see my point?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't get why a warmer climate, with more CO2 is scary-bad.
It's bad if it happens to quickly Harvey.

One more time: It's bad if it happens too quickly

The Earth warmed 7 degrees in 12,000 years. That's about 1 degree over a 1500 year period.

So can you see that 2-4 degrees in just 100 years is a bit violent a change?

HarveyH55 wrote:There is a much larger margin of error, than the predicted warming, making it a faith-based, political issue, not a crisis.
So lacking precision and clarity on something makes it no longer exist?

"large margin of error" = "not a crisis"

Wow! So I guess smoking in the 1950s was totally healthy right? Since we lacked the data to conclusively say it wasn't by your logic it "wasn't a crisis".

HarveyH55 wrote:It freezes every winter
Again the silly comparison with daily variation in temperature presumably making a mean temp meaningless.

The mean/average matters a lot of most things of course.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 19-03-2022 11:53
19-03-2022 19:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases ...

And there was warming 100 years ago correct? And 200, and 500 and 1000 and 5000 years ago right?

Hasn't there been "warming" for the past 12,000 years?

There would have been frozen Tundra further south 5000 years ago that as we thawed out from the last ice age would have done everything you've described right?

So the question is why is it a big deal now if it's always part of warming. Granted we're talking about the prospect of a unique EXTRA warming due to human activity, but the resulting effects wouldn't be any different in type from what happens with "normal" warming.

Basically the issue I have is that there never seems to be a description of the "natural" and the AGW. Not that I know we have any natural warming now, maybe we have a natural cooling in the mean temp. But do you see my point?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't get why a warmer climate, with more CO2 is scary-bad.
It's bad if it happens to quickly Harvey.

One more time: It's bad if it happens too quickly

The Earth warmed 7 degrees in 12,000 years. That's about 1 degree over a 1500 year period.

So can you see that 2-4 degrees in just 100 years is a bit violent a change?

HarveyH55 wrote:There is a much larger margin of error, than the predicted warming, making it a faith-based, political issue, not a crisis.
So lacking precision and clarity on something makes it no longer exist?

"large margin of error" = "not a crisis"

Wow! So I guess smoking in the 1950s was totally healthy right? Since we lacked the data to conclusively say it wasn't by your logic it "wasn't a crisis".

HarveyH55 wrote:It freezes every winter
Again the silly comparison with daily variation in temperature presumably making a mean temp meaningless.

The mean/average matters a lot of most things of course.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


I lived in Florida, 35 or so years now. This is significant, since a lot of the catastrophic, doomsday prophecies should be hitting us harder, with every passing year. Much of the year, the daytime high is mid 90s F. The high humidity makes it feel warmer, since sweat doesn't evaporate well, when the air around you is already saturated. We should be seeing triple digit temperatures most of the summer. What's worse, is that the triple digits have been getting very rare. The weather stations have to factor in the humidity, to reach a feels-like, triple digit temperature.

Florida is low-lying land, surrounded by ocean. Rising sea levels, should be really screwing us up by now. We get torrential rains every year, and high sea levels, would make it had for much of it to runoff into the ocean. Should be season flooding, at the very least. People are still building huge, waterfront homes, hotels, resorts. Guessing, they aren't buying climate change either.

We also get hit with hurricanes often. The frequency and intensity hasn't really seemed to increase. They've had to implement 'improved' measurement techniques, to gain that appearance. First decade or so, that I lived in Florida, a hurricane would downgrade, about one category at landfall, and carry the remaining intensity through the entire state, across into other states, until it hit some hills or mountains. Past decade, even a Cat 5, will downgrade to barely a hurricane (cat 1), and be a tropical storm as it crosses the state. Most of the catastrophic damage done at landfall, rather than continuing on.

Our winters are much milder though. Use to get an occasional hard freeze, but it wasn't uncommon to get freeze warnings and see frost and ice. Seldom even drops into the 30s any more. Been years since I've worn an actual jacket. Just anything with long sleeves, a sweatshirt or hoodie. My central AC and heating usually did a piss-poor job of heating the house. Seldom feel a need to run the heat, which actually cycles on and off, rather than continuous, and still not doing much. Mostly, I just run it, so I could get out of the long pants, and long sleeve shirts. Winters have been milder, but the summer is milder as well. Definitely liking climate change...
19-03-2022 19:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
tmiddles wrote:And there was warming 100 years ago correct? And 200, and 500 and 1000 and 5000 years ago right?

Surely you must be aware that you are living out a fantasy. You are not simply speculating about the past. You are treating all of this Climate Change as some sort of work of fiction that you read and are now trying to discuss ... in the same manner that I would discuss The Simarillion or The Shining. All fiction has familiar elements in the settings but recount stories that never actually happened. Discussion of such requires a suspension of disbelief and the making of assertions as though the story occurred as recounted.

A discussion of The Simarillion would involve statements such as "The Noldor departed Valinor." There are no Noldor. There is no Valinor. It's just a work of fantasy fiction. Earth's past has no regular schedule of thermodynamics violations that is somehow known ... yet you are convinced that you know all of this fiction to have actually occurred.

This leads to the question of why you don't just delve into existing fiction that you can discuss on a literary basis rather than force yourself into the difficult position of being required to suspend disbelief in physics violations. You clearly need to believe that your personal fantasy is "what we know" ... so why not choose one whereby you don't have to lie to yourself, one whereby you can accept physics and not pretend to know things that just aren't?

tmiddles wrote:Hasn't there been "warming" for the past 12,000 years?

If you were to choose some existing work of fiction to discuss, one in which the author has thought through all the details, you'd be able to recount all the pertinent definitions and answer clarification questions. As it stands, you can't even define this "warming" that you just used in your appeal to seal over to please, please, please, please, please believe your fantasy. You would make it easier for him to suspend his disbelief if you had solid, unambiguous definitions onto which he could get a firm grasp. You know he's doing the same thing to you with his techno-jargon that remains totally undefined. He needs for you to believe his version of the fantasy, the version that he owns, and for you to abandon your attempts at staking your own personal claim of ownership to the fantasy. seal over will claim that he doesn't need/want any unambiguous definitions because 1) he doesn't have any for his version and 2) it would be detrimental to him if you were to produce definitions that swing the balance of power in your favor.

At the moment, you aren't defining any terms either, owing to the difficulty of your position, so seal over is biding his time, but make no mistake, you both came here to preach/pitch your own personal fantasies and neither of you has any intention of capitulating into becoming a member of the other's choir.

As long as you are clamping down on your version of the fantasy as being "what we know" you can expect seal over to simply double down on "biogeochemistry explains Climate Change" and he will point to his claimed PhD with full expectation that you submit. I recommend you learn more about his version of the fantasy by asking him to recount his trip to the septic tank. He'll know what you're talking about.

tmiddles wrote:So the question is why is it a big deal now if it's always part of warming.

You have to know that your question is stupid. You are appealing to seal over to please, please, please, please, please embrace your version of the fantasy. You know he won't budge. Nowhere in your question do you acknowledge that biogeochemistry is the driver for all of Climate Change ... nor do you make any indication that will accept him as the authority between the two of you. After all, he has the (claimed) Ph.D. You are simply not following the proper protocol so you already know upfront that your appeal will be summarily rejected.

... but I wish you the best of luck nonetheless. I recommend you implement a strategy of lamenting the demise of coral reefs. That might distract seal over enough that he warms up to you sufficiently to start accepting more and more of what you preach in order to get more of your apparent "shared interest." I don't know if you noticed but seal over is hurting for attention. He needs acknowledgment and acceptance like nobody's business. It's almost as though his mother never loved him. Anyway, that's one possible strategy.

tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:I really don't get why a warmer climate, with more CO2 is scary-bad.
It's bad if it happens to quickly Harvey.

And you are aware that this is just your fantasy speaking and not reality. You are aware that in reality, the temperature change from night to day, and from day to night, happens far more quickly than the rate you are discussing (and which you are not specifying for obvious reasons) and our world is not experiencing daily mass extinctions.

What rate of temperature change are you claiming will cause the death of many species across the globe? If a man in a cool room walks into a sauna, he dies, right? After all, it's not the temperature change, but the rate of the temperature change, that kills, right? Guns don't kill people, people kill people, by accelerating anthropogenitalia temperature change beyond the tipping point, right?

tmiddles wrote:One more time: It's bad if it happens too quickly

One more time, that rate of temperature change that is "too quickly" is what?

tmiddles wrote:The Earth warmed 7 degrees in 12,000 years.

In your fantasy. You never bothered to ask Harvey how much it has changed in his fantasy. You should both get on the same sheet of music and then ask your question.

tmiddles wrote:That's about 1 degree over a 1500 year period.
So can you see that 2-4 degrees in just 100 years is a bit violent a change?

Those are the exact words that come to mind when people feel a draft in a room, i.e. "a violent change." Of course, a change of 15 degrees within six hours is absolutely lethal. I don't know why legislators haven't outlawed the opening of refrigerators.

tmiddles wrote: So lacking precision and clarity on something makes it no longer exist? "large margin of error" = "not a crisis"

Simply claiming a crisis that exists only in your version of popular fantasy fiction is what makes it nonexistent. Neither Harvey nor anyone is capable of proving that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.

tmiddles wrote:Wow! So I guess smoking in the 1950s was totally healthy right?

Let me know if you need someone to remind you that you suck at formal logic.

tmiddles wrote:Since we lacked the data to conclusively say it wasn't by your logic it "wasn't a crisis".

"Not a crisis" does not equate to "totally healthy." Let me know if you need someone to remind you that you suck at logic.

tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:It freezes every winter
Again the silly comparison with daily variation in temperature presumably making a mean temp meaningless.

Let me know if you need someone to remind you that you suck at math.

The rate of temperature change is calculated by dividing the change in temperature by the time interval. The calculation is not somehow rendered invalid if the time duration 24 hours, fifteen minutes, three weeks, 47 milliseconds, etc... All time intervals are valid and you must account for them if you are going to assert that the rate of temperature change is what matters and that "It's bad if it happens too quickly."

By the way, that's exactly what you claim, so account for Harvey's example.

By the way, Harvey's example renders your assertion false. It's called the scientific method. I'm glad I could help.
19-03-2022 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases ...

And there was warming 100 years ago correct? And 200, and 500 and 1000 and 5000 years ago right?

Hasn't there been "warming" for the past 12,000 years?

There would have been frozen Tundra further south 5000 years ago that as we thawed out from the last ice age would have done everything you've described right?

So the question is why is it a big deal now if it's always part of warming. Granted we're talking about the prospect of a unique EXTRA warming due to human activity, but the resulting effects wouldn't be any different in type from what happens with "normal" warming.

Basically the issue I have is that there never seems to be a description of the "natural" and the AGW. Not that I know we have any natural warming now, maybe we have a natural cooling in the mean temp. But do you see my point?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't get why a warmer climate, with more CO2 is scary-bad.
It's bad if it happens to quickly Harvey.

One more time: It's bad if it happens too quickly

The Earth warmed 7 degrees in 12,000 years. That's about 1 degree over a 1500 year period.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You weren't even alive 12000 years ago. You are making shit up again.
tmiddles wrote:
So can you see that 2-4 degrees in just 100 years is a bit violent a change?

From 5 deg F to 100 deg F in just six months. Winter to summer. Figure it out, dude.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:There is a much larger margin of error, than the predicted warming, making it a faith-based, political issue, not a crisis.
So lacking precision and clarity on something makes it no longer exist?

"large margin of error" = "not a crisis"

Large margin of error makes your statement a denial of mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
Wow! So I guess smoking in the 1950s was totally healthy right? Since we lacked the data to conclusively say it wasn't by your logic it "wasn't a crisis".

It wasn't.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:It freezes every winter
Again the silly comparison with daily variation in temperature presumably making a mean temp meaningless.

The mean/average matters a lot of most things of course.

Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the 0th 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
RE: She wasn't asking YOU, idiot19-03-2022 21:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:

I'm glad I could help.[/quote]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a reason nobody visits your thread to ask YOU questions about science.

You HAVE to be a party crasher because nobody would ever want to go to YOUR place, and nobody would willingly invite you to theirs.

More than 100,000 posts.

And just this one. How much time did it take to write so much worthless crap?

I would encourage you to get a life.

To tmiddles. I want to steer clear of climate history questions for now.

Basically, without anthropogenic global warming, we would be due for some gradual natural cooling.

We're just about at the end of the natural warming.

The ridiculously distorted "new ice age" stuff of the 1970s was based on the average length of the cycle.

If it does the same thing again that it did over and over before, we are within a thousand years of the shift away from warming.

Then the glaciers will start building up again, very slowly, for 13 thousand years or so. Sea level will slowly go back down as water is locked in glaciers..

But what I want to address is this pathetic loser who can't stay off my threads.

I be da man should start his own thread where he can offer his superior expertise in science.

Based on his irrefutable credibility, people will flock their to seek his wisdom.

Perhaps he doesn't realize that nobody will be asking me questions because they want to get one of these lengthy rants from him.

I guess it keeps him off the streets, but I wish he would find another thread to troll
RE: When Panama sealed off the global ocean current19-03-2022 22:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
The repeating cycle of ice ages didn't begin until a few million years ago.

Before that there was a global ocean current flowing between North America and South America.

Warm tropical water passed between the two continents to spread far and wide.

There wasn't as much warm water in the tropics, and there wasn't as much cold water at the poles.

When plate tectonics sealed off the two oceans at Panama, everything changed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases ...

And there was warming 100 years ago correct? And 200, and 500 and 1000 and 5000 years ago right?

Hasn't there been "warming" for the past 12,000 years?

There would have been frozen Tundra further south 5000 years ago that as we thawed out from the last ice age would have done everything you've described right?

So the question is why is it a big deal now if it's always part of warming. Granted we're talking about the prospect of a unique EXTRA warming due to human activity, but the resulting effects wouldn't be any different in type from what happens with "normal" warming.

Basically the issue I have is that there never seems to be a description of the "natural" and the AGW. Not that I know we have any natural warming now, maybe we have a natural cooling in the mean temp. But do you see my point?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't get why a warmer climate, with more CO2 is scary-bad.
It's bad if it happens to quickly Harvey.

One more time: It's bad if it happens too quickly

The Earth warmed 7 degrees in 12,000 years. That's about 1 degree over a 1500 year period.

So can you see that 2-4 degrees in just 100 years is a bit violent a change?

HarveyH55 wrote:There is a much larger margin of error, than the predicted warming, making it a faith-based, political issue, not a crisis.
So lacking precision and clarity on something makes it no longer exist?

"large margin of error" = "not a crisis"

Wow! So I guess smoking in the 1950s was totally healthy right? Since we lacked the data to conclusively say it wasn't by your logic it "wasn't a crisis".

HarveyH55 wrote:It freezes every winter
Again the silly comparison with daily variation in temperature presumably making a mean temp meaningless.

The mean/average matters a lot of most things of course.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
19-03-2022 23:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
There is a reason nobody visits your thread to ask YOU questions about science.

What thread? Void argument fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Trolling.
sealover wrote:
You HAVE to be a party crasher because nobody would ever want to go to YOUR place, and nobody would willingly invite you to theirs.

What place? Void argument fallacy. Trolling.
sealover wrote:
More than 100,000 posts.

And just this one. How much time did it take to write so much worthless crap?

I would encourage you to get a life.

To tmiddles. I want to steer clear of climate history questions for now.

Basically, without anthropogenic global warming, we would be due for some gradual natural cooling.

We're just about at the end of the natural warming.

The ridiculously distorted "new ice age" stuff of the 1970s was based on the average length of the cycle.

If it does the same thing again that it did over and over before, we are within a thousand years of the shift away from warming.

What warming? How do you know what happened 1000 years ago. Were you there? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
Then the glaciers will start building up again, very slowly, for 13 thousand years or so. Sea level will slowly go back down as water is locked in glaciers..

Speculation.
sealover wrote:
But what I want to address is this pathetic loser who can't stay off my threads.

I be da man should start his own thread where he can offer his superior expertise in science.

Based on his irrefutable credibility, people will flock their to seek his wisdom.

Perhaps he doesn't realize that nobody will be asking me questions because they want to get one of these lengthy rants from him.

I guess it keeps him off the streets, but I wish he would find another thread to troll

Trolling. Spamming. No argument presented.


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
19-03-2022 23:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
The repeating cycle of ice ages didn't begin until a few million years ago.
How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
Before that there was a global ocean current flowing between North America and South America.

How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
Warm tropical water passed between the two continents to spread far and wide.
How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
There wasn't as much warm water in the tropics, and there wasn't as much cold water at the poles.
How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
When plate tectonics sealed off the two oceans at Panama, everything changed.

How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.

You must be reading scripture or something.


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
RE: I did not see the Holocaust. I was not there.20-03-2022 01:11
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
You are once again correct.

I did not see the Holocaust.

I was not there.

There is no way to truly know if there was a Holocaust.

Holocaust is a buzzword that must be unambiguously defined.

You have no valid proof.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
The repeating cycle of ice ages didn't begin until a few million years ago.
How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
Before that there was a global ocean current flowing between North America and South America.

How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
Warm tropical water passed between the two continents to spread far and wide.
How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
There wasn't as much warm water in the tropics, and there wasn't as much cold water at the poles.
How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.
sealover wrote:
When plate tectonics sealed off the two oceans at Panama, everything changed.

How do you know? You weren't alive a few million years ago.

You must be reading scripture or something.
20-03-2022 02:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:To tmiddles. I want to steer clear of climate history questions for now.

Awww, c'mon, it's not like tmiddles' question was somehow difficult. Just give him an answer.

tmiddles is asking a valid question that elucidates how Global Warming is driven by human activity and not by your biochemigenetic "forces." I think tmiddles knows a little bit more about this subject than you do so let's just hear him out. You just might learn something.

seal over wrote:But what I want to address is this pathetic loser who can't stay off my threads.

All you have to do is acknowledge tmiddles' authority on this subject and I'll leave this thread alone.

seal over wrote:I be da man should start his own thread where he can offer his superior expertise in science.

... or I can snipe at you from the sidelines. This is fun too.

seal over wrote:Based on his irrefutable credibility, people will flock their to seek his wisdom.

I'm here as a courtesy to you. I'll draw attention to your thread just by being here.

You are most welcome.

You know what would really serve as a "kickoff" for your threads? Making your first point. That would really be something.

.
20-03-2022 02:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
HarveyH55 wrote:Definitely liking climate change...
Well you might be one of the only people here convinced it is occurring.

Your "why is it a problem" argument pretty much says that a changing environment in general is meaningless to life on Earth. You're aware there have been countless species to go extinct though right?

Also have you noticed that not all crops are grown everywhere? Most apples can't grow in Florida for example as it's too warm.

It has NEVER been a contention of Climate Change alarmist that this is a spoil your picnic weather issue. It's about too violently disrupting the ecosystem.

sealover wrote:
The repeating cycle of ice ages didn't begin until a few million years ago.
Interesting but that change wasn't anthropogenic of course. So my questions are still there. Why is it a "Vicious Feedback" now and it wasn't 5000 years ago? Is there something particularly important about the current temp on Earth?

Looking at this it seems that there are two things that seem to be true:
1- It was warmer before, 125,000 years ago
2- We had a non-AGW spike leading us to where we are now.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 20-03-2022 02:40
RE: My expertise is actually biogeochemistry20-03-2022 02:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I apologize if it comes off as rude, but my unique contribution to the discussion is biogeochemistry.

There are plenty of other things I know, like a few things about paleoclimatogy, but I'm going to avoid them for the moment.

Such things will come up periodically.

For example, when previous climate patterns got turned upside down because the global ocean current got sealed off, one of the consequences was that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dropped WAY down to historic lows.

For a few million years now it has hovered around 350 ppm, at least until lately.

For thousands of millions of years before that it was always much, much higher.

But please give me some time. Those things will be included in future science lessons. Trust me on that one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Definitely liking climate change...
Well you might be one of the only people here convinced it is occurring.

Your "why is it a problem" argument pretty much says that a changing environment in general is meaningless to life on Earth. You're aware there have been countless species to go extinct though right?

Also have you noticed that not all crops are grown everywhere? Most apples can't grow in Florida for example as it's too warm.

It has NEVER been a contention of Climate Change alarmist that this is a spoil your picnic weather issue. It's about too violently disrupting the ecosystem.

sealover wrote:
The repeating cycle of ice ages didn't begin until a few million years ago.
Interesting but that change wasn't anthropogenic of course. So my questions are still there. Why is it a "Vicious Feedback" now and it wasn't 5000 years ago? Is there something particularly important about the current temp on Earth?

Looking at this it seems that there are two things that seem to be true:
1- It was warmer before, 125,000 years ago
2- We had a non-AGW spike leading us to where we are now.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
RE: Example of feedback a few million years back20-03-2022 03:07
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Example of feedback a few million years ago.

Since I already brought it up, I'll give you a brief preview.

This is biogeochemistry AND a climate feedback.

Mother Nature switched the dial on CO2, and now we were in for ice ages.

With the global ocean current sealed off, the tropical seas got warmer and the polar seas got colder.

So, if these historically high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere dropped so much, where did all the carbon go?

Well, the tundra got very cold for one thing.

It started aggrading and building a store of organic carbon that wasn't going back to the atmosphere anytime soon.

That is enough of a preview. Don't ask me to elaborate yet.
20-03-2022 03:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:... polar seas got colder....tundra got very cold ...started aggrading and building a store of organic carbon...

makes sense, like a pulled back rubber band that can snap back.

A far more visible example is simply a large glacier melting.

But again glaciers where melting 5000 years ago too. As was Tundra thawing.

sealover wrote:
I apologize if it comes off as rude, but my unique contribution to the discussion is biogeochemistry.

Not at all. Now I know you're actually a scientist as you're not pretending to have an answer for everything : )

But your topic here is about an implied conflagration of factors.

You do see my point about if this happens to be a tipping point or not.

My biggest head scratcher on this is that non human change never seems to be factored in.

Maybe you'd be interested in talking about Venus? Safe to say there is no AGW there : )
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 20-03-2022 03:12
RE: Venus example - the importance of water20-03-2022 03:34
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
With apologies to tmiddles, My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons.

So my apologies, tmiddles if our personal conversations are impersonal.

And again, my admiration for your thick-skinned resilience as a rational person who wants to learn something in this troll-infested place.

Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water to keep a planet cool.

Oddly enough, there is an important variable of global warming to be learned from it.

Furthermore, Venus is free of any confounding variable of human activity.

Exclusively NON anthropogenic on Venus.

Water keeps the earth cool.

If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today, all other things being equal.

Water takes heat from the surface and sends it back out to space.

Not as radiation.

The water molecules themselves carry the heat with them as they evaporate and float high into the atmosphere.

They release that heat high above the surface when they condense out of the air as liquid water.

That heat is well above the surface.

It has a better chance of radiating out into space than it does of reheating the planet's surface.

"Heat" is really the wrong word in many ways.

It is about the energy required evaporate liquid water, and the energy released upon condensation of water vapor.

"Heat" suggests that the temperature of the water molecules going up and down from the surface has anything to do with it.

Well, Venus used to have a LOT of water.

Furthermore, back in the day, the sun used to have less luminosity.

Venus then, was like earth today.

But the sun was constantly ramping up the luminosity.

There was a point when there was still water, but hotter than before.

Then there was a point when the water ran out completely, and the planet turned into an oven.

By the way, the sun's luminosity is still ramping up.

It's kind of a factor in natural global warming.

WE'RE NEXT!

But we've got at least a thousand million years to adapt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:... polar seas got colder....tundra got very cold ...started aggrading and building a store of organic carbon...

makes sense, like a pulled back rubber band that can snap back.

A far more visible example is simply a large glacier melting.

But again glaciers where melting 5000 years ago too. As was Tundra thawing.

sealover wrote:
I apologize if it comes off as rude, but my unique contribution to the discussion is biogeochemistry.

Not at all. Now I know you're actually a scientist as you're not pretending to have an answer for everything : )

But your topic here is about an implied conflagration of factors.

You do see my point about if this happens to be a tipping point or not.

My biggest head scratcher on this is that non human change never seems to be factored in.

Maybe you'd be interested in talking about Venus? Safe to say there is no AGW there : )
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
20-03-2022 08:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
seal over wrote:Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water to keep a planet cool.

Great catch. It's not Venus' super-dense atmosphere and close proximity to the sun that makes it hot ... it's the lack of standing water. Good job. You nailed that one.

seal over wrote:Water keeps the earth cool.

What keeps the water cool? Oh, that's right ... water cannot increase in temperature. You're really helping me piece this together.

seal over wrote:If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today, all other things being equal.

Which is why it's so much hotter where there isn't any water to keep it cool. Another great catch.

seal over wrote:Water takes heat from the surface and sends it back out to space.

In this context, what are you claiming "heat" is?

From The MANUAL.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

seal over wrote:Not as radiation. The water molecules themselves carry the heat with them as they evaporate and float high into the atmosphere.

Nope. The short answer is that you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. There is nothing about the earth that somehow increases earth's radiance above that driven by Stefan-Boltzmann.

So, no.

seal over wrote:They release that heat high above the surface when they condense out of the air as liquid water.

There is no "release" of heat because heat is not something that can be trapped or contained. You should learn a little science and find out what heat is.

seal over wrote:That heat is well above the surface.

Yes, you definitely should learn what heat is.

seal over wrote:It has a better chance of radiating out into space than it does of reheating the planet's surface.

It's not a question of probability. Earth's radiance is governed completely by Stefan-Boltzmann. There's no way around it. There's no way to modify it.

seal over wrote:"Heat" is really the wrong word in many ways.

Yes. Entirely the wrong word.

seal over wrote:It is about the energy required evaporate liquid water, and the energy released upon condensation of water vapor.

None of that has anything to do with what the earth radiates into space.

seal over wrote:Well, Venus used to have a LOT of water.

Why should any rational adult believe that?

seal over wrote:Furthermore, back in the day, the sun used to have less luminosity.

Did Galileo capture some video?

seal over wrote:Venus then, was like earth today.

Why should any rational adult believe that?

seal over wrote:But the sun was constantly ramping up the luminosity.

Galileo's video was HD, I bet.

seal over wrote:There was a point when there was still water, but hotter than before.

Of course.

seal over wrote:Then there was a point when the water ran out completely, and the planet turned into an oven.

This is trafn's theory, except that trafn focused on the earth's ice as mainly keeping the earth cool, but that when it's all gone, earth becomes Venus and blows up into tiny pieces or something like that.

seal over wrote:By the way, the sun's luminosity is still ramping up.

Probably due to human activity.
20-03-2022 08:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
You are once again correct.

I did not see the Holocaust.

I was not there.

So? Other people were.
sealover wrote:
There is no way to truly know if there was a Holocaust.

So despite the witnesses to it, the records left behind by families of the victims and by soldiers that discovered the horror of it, you deny it. I suppose you also deny WW2, despite the extensive records left behind by that war.
sealover wrote:
Holocaust is a buzzword that must be unambiguously defined.

It is defined.
sealover wrote:
You have no valid proof.

Just the extensive records left behind of it. Now if you want to call all those people liars, that's your business. Those who don't learn from history are usually doomed to repeat it.

You are making a false equivalence fallacy. You are comparing events in recent recorded history to events millions of years ago that were never observed and spewing temperatures that were never measured.

You are making a mockery again. You don't care who's graves you dance on to do it either.


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
20-03-2022 08:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Definitely liking climate change...
Well you might be one of the only people here convinced it is occurring.

Your "why is it a problem" argument pretty much says that a changing environment in general is meaningless to life on Earth. You're aware there have been countless species to go extinct though right?

So?
tmiddles wrote:
Also have you noticed that not all crops are grown everywhere? Most apples can't grow in Florida for example as it's too warm.

Apples grow just fine in Florida. I guess you aren't aware of the apple orchards in Florida.
tmiddles wrote:
It has NEVER been a contention of Climate Change alarmist that this is a spoil your picnic weather issue. It's about too violently disrupting the ecosystem.

Define 'violently disrupting the ecosystem'. Buzzword fallacy. Fear mongering.
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
The repeating cycle of ice ages didn't begin until a few million years ago.
Interesting but that change wasn't anthropogenic of course. So my questions are still there. Why is it a "Vicious Feedback" now and it wasn't 5000 years ago? Is there something particularly important about the current temp on Earth?

Looking at this it seems that there are two things that seem to be true:
1- It was warmer before, 125,000 years ago
2- We had a non-AGW spike leading us to where we are now.

You are guessing.


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
20-03-2022 08:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
I apologize if it comes off as rude, but my unique contribution to the discussion is biogeochemistry.

Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
sealover wrote:
There are plenty of other things I know, like a few things about paleoclimatogy, but I'm going to avoid them for the moment.

Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Such things will come up periodically.

For example, when previous climate patterns got turned upside down because the global ocean current got sealed off,

Define 'climate patterns'. Buzzword fallacy. There is no global ocean current.
sealover wrote:
one of the consequences was that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dropped WAY down to historic lows.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
For a few million years now it has hovered around 350 ppm, at least until lately.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
For thousands of millions of years before that it was always much, much higher.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
But please give me some time. Those things will be included in future science lessons. Trust me on that one.

No science here. Science is not buzzwords or random numbers.


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
20-03-2022 08:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:... polar seas got colder....tundra got very cold ...started aggrading and building a store of organic carbon...

makes sense, like a pulled back rubber band that can snap back.

From where. There is no such thing as 'organic carbon'. Carbon isn't organic.
tmiddles wrote:
A far more visible example is simply a large glacier melting.

But again glaciers where melting 5000 years ago too. As was Tundra thawing.

Glaciers were forming too. There's this thing, you see, called the seasons. Apparently you've never heard of it.
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
I apologize if it comes off as rude, but my unique contribution to the discussion is biogeochemistry.

Not at all. Now I know you're actually a scientist as you're not pretending to have an answer for everything : )

He is no scientist and is pretending to have an answer for everything.
tmiddles wrote:
But your topic here is about an implied conflagration of factors.

You do see my point about if this happens to be a tipping point or not.

There is no 'tipping point'. Buzzword fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
My biggest head scratcher on this is that non human change never seems to be factored in.

Maybe you'd be interested in talking about Venus? Safe to say there is no AGW there : )

Want to go back to that inanity, eh? It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus either.


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
20-03-2022 09:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:...My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons.
While admirable know that literally non one is here. There is no audience. The trolls killed this board long ago simply because it's not moderated. A guy named Jeppe Branner created this board and just let's it die ( I suspect that he wants a failed discussion online as he hopes to just throw some mud at the topic but I don't know, only motive I could think of). There is a foreign language version I think he's on so it's possible to discover his motives I suppose.

But that said it's really just you and I talking here. If you want to feed the trolls you can.

sealover wrote:...Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water...If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today...


OK while a conveyor of an exothermic reaction (condensation) higher into the atmosphere does seem like it would reduce ground level temps a bit I have never come across this before (it's NOT in the climate models that are generally posted). See my thread here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php
wikipedia heat budget



So do you have a citation for that? It seems to me the clouds probably do more simply reflecting than the exothermic reaction of condensation. AND venus sure does have some shade down at the surface. Plenty of clouds there. Mars has clouds too.

It seems wrong on it's face as a major factor in explaining Venus as Mars has no water and is even cooler than the Earth relative to it's distance from the Sun (presumably because of the thin atmosphere).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 20-03-2022 09:59
RE: posts will remain available when they get there20-03-2022 10:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Posts will remain available when audience arrives.

You are quite correct.

There is no choir to preach to here. Yet.

What I'm doing is trying to create the library before they get here.

Everything I've posted will remain available.

Furthermore, it will remain accessible without need to actually see ANY troll material.

I was well aware that for the time being, virtually nobody could see them and that was part of the plan.

I was quite surprised that there was even ONE like you, and now I'm aware of others as well.

It was a year ago when I first signed up.

It didn't take much research.

All you had to do was see how many views of the posts to know it was a dead.

This website was a no-go zone and it was no secret. Nor any secret why.

I figured it was a quiet place to set up shop.

I'm far from ready though.

Technical issues, like how to post materials besides what I can type, and having them prepared.

This is the perfect start.

And even if it's just you and me talking for a while, those posts will be available for the others to see later.

I'm not sure that what I'm doing right now is "feeding" the trolls.

If so, they'll be on a starvation diet for about another week.

Trust me. I have a plan. I'm not alone. We are not alone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons.
While admirable know that literally non one is here. There is no audience. The trolls killed this board long ago simply because it's not moderated. A guy named Jeppe Branner created this board and just let's it die ( I suspect that he wants a failed discussion online as he hopes to just throw some mud at the topic but I don't know, only motive I could think of). There is a foreign language version I think he's on so it's possible to discover his motives I suppose.

But that said it's really just you and I talking here. If you want to feed the trolls you can.

sealover wrote:...Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water...If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today...


OK while a conveyor of an exothermic reaction (condensation) higher into the atmosphere does seem like it would reduce ground level temps a bit I have never come across this before (it's NOT in the climate models that are generally posted). See my thread here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php
wikipedia heat budget



So do you have a citation for that? It seems to me the clouds probably do more simply reflecting than the exothermic reaction of condensation. AND venus sure does have some shade down at the surface. Plenty of clouds there. Mars has clouds too.

It seems wrong on it's face as a major factor in explaining Venus as Mars has no water and is even cooler than the Earth relative to it's distance from the Sun (presumably because of the thin atmosphere).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
RE: follow up - their posts are part of the lesson plan20-03-2022 10:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Just so you know that there is really method to my madness.

Their posts have been part of the lesson plan from the beginning.

My posts have been off the top of my head.

I couldn't figure out how to load in an image in my first post.

Two more tries and I realized it was better with just my off the cuff words.

The troll replies provided me with all kinds of additional teaching materials.

They will work on ANY such website, but I'm going to prove it hear first.

And when it becomes something other than me telling stories to an echo chamber, I won't be able to tell stories the same way anymore.

That's when the figures, tables, etc., come in because I expect some sophisticated conversation.

Not to brag, but my colleagues include some of the world's best and brightest.

Give me more time to get this place ready.

Such an easy website name to remember.

It could go viral overnight.

May may be too ambitious, but that is still the target.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons.
While admirable know that literally non one is here. There is no audience. The trolls killed this board long ago simply because it's not moderated. A guy named Jeppe Branner created this board and just let's it die ( I suspect that he wants a failed discussion online as he hopes to just throw some mud at the topic but I don't know, only motive I could think of). There is a foreign language version I think he's on so it's possible to discover his motives I suppose.

But that said it's really just you and I talking here. If you want to feed the trolls you can.

sealover wrote:...Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water...If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today...


OK while a conveyor of an exothermic reaction (condensation) higher into the atmosphere does seem like it would reduce ground level temps a bit I have never come across this before (it's NOT in the climate models that are generally posted). See my thread here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php
wikipedia heat budget



So do you have a citation for that? It seems to me the clouds probably do more simply reflecting than the exothermic reaction of condensation. AND venus sure does have some shade down at the surface. Plenty of clouds there. Mars has clouds too.

It seems wrong on it's face as a major factor in explaining Venus as Mars has no water and is even cooler than the Earth relative to it's distance from the Sun (presumably because of the thin atmosphere).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
20-03-2022 11:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
Posts will remain available when audience arrives.
I totally agree with the goal there. Education in layman's terms on an important issue.

Here is the challenge I see: Active disinformation and Belief_perseverance leave most people immune to even considering it.

Now I don't think it's hopeless. Max Plank did. He famously said of SCIENTISTS mind you!: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die ....— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

I think it's possible to teach through these issues and that old dogs can learn new tricks. Besides with a real crisis you have events to push the issue.

But I would urge you to ignore the trolls and work achieving clarity with someone that wants to listen. And I'm listening.

So VENUS is extremely hot, Earth considerably hot and Mars slightly hotter than their distance from the Sun would cause. This corresponds to the density of their atmospheres but not to the standing water.

In any case there would seem to be something going on that I'm not seeing in them models.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
RE: I regret my limitation to biogeochemistry20-03-2022 11:59
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Thank you for the question.

Frankly, thank you for ever asking me any kind of question at all.

It was such a breath of fresh air.

But I regret that I strayed beyond biogeochemistry a bit too much already.

I would defer to a better qualified expert rather than try to give you an answer.

Good news, my friend.

Some of those qualified experts in other fields of science, many of them, are among my friends and colleagues.

My dream is to have them join us here.

Perhaps this is just a dry run.

But isn't it worth a try?

I'll let one of them take on a question such as this because it is outside of my specialization in biogeochemistry.

Biogeochemistry has been the consistent theme and I'm stickin' to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Posts will remain available when audience arrives.
I totally agree with the goal there. Education in layman's terms on an important issue.

Here is the challenge I see: Active disinformation and Belief_perseverance leave most people immune to even considering it.

Now I don't think it's hopeless. Max Plank did. He famously said of SCIENTISTS mind you!: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die ....— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

I think it's possible to teach through these issues and that old dogs can learn new tricks. Besides with a real crisis you have events to push the issue.

But I would urge you to ignore the trolls and work achieving clarity with someone that wants to listen. And I'm listening.

So VENUS is extremely hot, Earth considerably hot and Mars slightly hotter than their distance from the Sun would cause. This corresponds to the density of their atmospheres but not to the standing water.

In any case there would seem to be something going on that I'm not seeing in them models.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
20-03-2022 15:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
tmiddles wrote: I totally agree with the goal there. Education in layman's terms on an important issue.

Agreed. So you join me in mocking seal over for pretending to accomplish this through esoteric pharmacology terminology, yes? ...or did you not mean what you wrote?

tmiddles wrote: But I would urge you to ignore the trolls and work achieving clarity with someone that wants to listen. And I'm listening.

Good tactic. I see why you are feigning solidarity for the moment.

tmiddles wrote: So VENUS is extremely hot, Earth considerably hot and Mars slightly hotter than their distance from the Sun would cause.

Nope. You know well that all three are exactly as hot as their emissivities determine.

tmiddles wrote: This corresponds to the density of their atmospheres but not to the standing water.

You need to ease into those direct contradictions a bit more subtly.
21-03-2022 01:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Thank you for the question.

Frankly, thank you for ever asking me any kind of question at all.

It was such a breath of fresh air.

But I regret that I strayed beyond biogeochemistry a bit too much already.

I would defer to a better qualified expert rather than try to give you an answer.

Good news, my friend.

Some of those qualified experts in other fields of science, many of them, are among my friends and colleagues.

My dream is to have them join us here.

Perhaps this is just a dry run.

But isn't it worth a try?

I'll let one of them take on a question such as this because it is outside of my specialization in biogeochemistry.

Biogeochemistry has been the consistent theme and I'm stickin' to it.

Buzzword fallacies. 'Expert' worship. Denial of science. Making up shit about your worthless life.

No argument presented.


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
RE: Photorespiration and C-3 versus C-4 metabolism in photosynthesis.21-03-2022 04:00
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Photorespiration and C-3 versus C-4 metabolism in photosynthesis.

True fact: The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from historic (for the last few million years) levels hovering around 350 ppm to the current concentration above 400 million ppm has caused a significant increase in carbon sequestered and retained in the plant during photosynthesis.

Translation, significantly larger yields now because plants don't accidentally burn up some of their organic carbon because of photorespiration.

Before getting into photorespiration, let's look at another impact of higher CO2 on carbon sequestered and retained during photosynthesis.

What happened to corn and sugar cane yields?

Why didn't THEY go up?

The data is in the public domain.

Some plants benefit tremendously from higher CO2. Up to 25% yield increase.

Other plants don't benefit at all. Not at all. Up to 0% yield increase.

What's the difference?

Unlike the vast majority of plant species benefitting from higher CO2, corn and sugar cane were never taking any losses to photorespiration.

They had evolved a different way to catch CO2 from the atmosphere.

They used C-4 metabolism. "4" being for the number of carbon atoms already in organic form on the molecule to which the next carbon would added from the next CO2 molecule being reduced and attached to it.

It was a good trick that gave C-4 plants an advantage back in the day.

They could get higher yields with the same amount of sunlight, compared to all the C-3 plants.

But now the competitive advantage C-4 plants used to have has been lost.

In fact now, C-3 plants get higher yields with the same amount of sunlight, compared to C-4.

Those guys are now at a DISADVANTAGE in the competition.

Back to photorespiration later.

Now i

sealover wrote:
The increased release of carbon dioxide and methane from tundra are both positive feedbacks to increased temperature.

The carbon dioxide is from aerobic respiration of organic carbon in soil organic matter by microorganisms.

The methane needs more than a sentence, but it is pretty straightforward that warming temperatures are capable of melting ice.

Positive feedback from anthropogenic global warming on natural ecosystem release of greenhouse gases is a real thing. Honest.

I won't bother with an "unambiguous definition for "feedback" because everyone with half a brain already knows what it means.

They didn't take the required preparatory courses first, and should not have enrolled in this class.

They are not allowed to interrupt the presentation with absurd demands.

There should be some way to kick them out of the classroom, but...

That's the downside of an unmoderated forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
The warming tundra is a double whammy.
I just used that as an example of "positive"? feedback where CO2 causing warming is required. It's an indirect feedback.

Most feedback is "negative"? right?

Like if you put more CO2 in the air the oceans will absorb more, reducing the CO2 in the air. negative feedback

If an object gets hotter it releases that energy even fast, again negative feedback.

I'm wondering if CO2 has any positive feedback that doesn't require warming as the middle step (that you can think of).
21-03-2022 08:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Photorespiration and C-3 versus C-4 metabolism in photosynthesis.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'photorespiration'.
sealover wrote:
True fact: The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from historic (for the last few million years) levels hovering around 350 ppm to the current concentration above 400 million ppm has caused a significant increase in carbon sequestered and retained in the plant during photosynthesis.

Making shit up again I see. You weren't around to measure global CO2 concentration several million years ago. It is not even possible to measure it today. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of statistical mathematics.
sealover wrote:
Translation, significantly larger yields now because plants don't accidentally burn up some of their organic carbon because of photorespiration.

Carbon isn't organic. There is no such thing as 'photorespiration'. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Before getting into photorespiration, let's look at another impact of higher CO2 on carbon sequestered and retained during photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis does not sequester or retain CO2.
sealover wrote:
What happened to corn and sugar cane yields?

Sugar cane yields were decimated by government regulations. Corn yields were increased by government subsidies.
sealover wrote:
Why didn't THEY go up?

RQAA.
sealover wrote:
The data is in the public domain.

Argument from randU fallacy. Random numbers are not data. Void reference fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Some plants benefit tremendously from higher CO2. Up to 25% yield increase.

You are making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Other plants don't benefit at all. Not at all. Up to 0% yield increase.

You are making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy.
sealover wrote:
What's the difference?

Two random numbers of type randU.
sealover wrote:
Unlike the vast majority of plant species benefitting from higher CO2, corn and sugar cane were never taking any losses to photorespiration.

Losses of what? Wacky conclusion based on random numbers and no understand of photosynthesis.
sealover wrote:
They had evolved a different way to catch CO2 from the atmosphere.

They used C-4 metabolism. "4" being for the number of carbon atoms already in organic form on the molecule to which the next carbon would added from the next CO2 molecule being reduced and attached to it.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon dioxide is not organic.
You are not describing a reduction reaction.
sealover wrote:
It was a good trick that gave C-4 plants an advantage back in the day.

Buzzword fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
sealover wrote:
They could get higher yields with the same amount of sunlight, compared to all the C-3 plants.

But now the competitive advantage C-4 plants used to have has been lost.

In fact now, C-3 plants get higher yields with the same amount of sunlight, compared to C-4.

Attempted change by void.

You are still denying chemistry, physics, and still using your own speculation as a 'proof', as well as continuing to make up wacky words with no meaning.


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
RE: Photorespiration, rise of C-4 photosynthesis fitness with decline C)2 to 350 ppm21-03-2022 09:25
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Photorespiration, rise of C-4 photosynthesis fitness when CO2 decline to 350ppm

Three million years ago, Mother Nature reset the dial on the earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. It dropped down. Like way, way down to where it had never been before.

going to be evasive about photorespiration details, but suffice it for now to say that when photorespiration causes the plant to waste organic carbon that it fixed from the atmosphere just an enzyme grabbed oxygen, accidentally, rather than carbon dioxide.

Carbon is a limiting nutrient when everyone competes under low CO2 at high noon under dense canopy of tropical rainforest. They can draw it down enough to increase the cost of doing business for photosynthesis. Like, by a LOT.

Not coincidentally, corn and sugarcane originated from such environment. Bamboo too. Able to outgrow neighbors who were losing most of the carbon they fixed to photorespiration when the carbon feeding frenzy was so fierce.

Bamboo, sugar cane, corn. Notoriously fast growers shoot up high fast. C_4 metabolism enabled them to do that when their neighbors were stalling under CO2-starved conditions.
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way022-07-2021 07:31
Another Trump Election Fraud Case Thrown Out6109-12-2020 20:12
This is a much bigger issue than a case of mere fraud3627-11-2020 23:07
Case fatality rate3620-04-2020 10:28
The case for spraying (just enough) chemicals into the sky to fight climate change013-03-2019 21:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact