Remember me
▼ Content

What is the Problem Presented by CO2?


What is the Problem Presented by CO2?28-09-2015 22:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
When we go outside and it's a beautiful day with fresh air, we don't panic and ask ourselves "What new taxes do we need to pass in order to fix this PROBLEM before it causes our imminent DOOM?"

There needs to be a problem before we try to address it.

CO2 is a good thing. We could use more of it. It is essential to life on planet earth.

So why is anyone worrying about reducing a "carbon footprint"?

Water is essential to life on planet earth. Should we be looking into ways to reduce our "hydro-footprint"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2015 22:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
How does that post make any sense at all? Are you deliberately trying to make AGW deniers look stupid? Or is this just trolling by the forum owner to try to generate traffic?
28-09-2015 23:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Surface Detail wrote:How does that post make any sense at all?

We have already established your poor reading comprehension. The problem seems to be at your end.

Surface Detail wrote:Are you deliberately trying to make AGW deniers look stupid?


Global Warming worshipers do an amazingly good job at making themselves look stupid. First they show how gullible they are by getting sucked into the most blatantly obvious scam (you probably sent money to the "Nigerian Banker" too, didn't you?). Then they show how they get confused over their unfalsifiable dogma being called "The Science."

Tell me, what's your story? How did you personally get sucked into Global Warming? Did your parents bring you to your first Global Warming church service? I bet it's fascinating, whatever it is.

Anyway, I notice that you weren't able to provide any justification for why CO2 is somehow a problem. Often it what you don't write that is just as illuminating as anything you might have written.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-04-2016 22:56
DaveRecklaw
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Methane is much more of a problem than Co2
17-04-2016 08:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
DaveRecklaw wrote:
Methane is much more of a problem than Co2

Why?


The Parrot Killer
RE: What is the problem with CO219-04-2016 08:16
wmiddlemas
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
It is a scientific fact that C02 and Methane act as atmospheric blankets to capture and hold heat in the atmosphere. This has been proven through geological history through ice core samples and is being proven today as C02 levels continue to rise in tandum with global warming. The fact that the temperature of Venus is a toasty 470 degrees C is largely caused by the high concentration of C02 in its atmosphere.
20-04-2016 23:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
wmiddlemas wrote:
It is a scientific fact that C02 and Methane act as atmospheric blankets to capture and hold heat in the atmosphere. This has been proven through geological history through ice core samples and is being proven today as C02 levels continue to rise in tandum with global warming. The fact that the temperature of Venus is a toasty 470 degrees C is largely caused by the high concentration of C02 in its atmosphere.


An atmosphere is not a blanket. It is not a thermal insulator of any kind. If you can call an atmosphere anything, it is a thermal ballast.

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. It's contribution is next to nil (approx 0.04%). Any radiation absorbed buy CO2 (only about 0.0002% of the total) is converted to heat, which dissipates into the rest of the thermal ballast of the atmosphere, making no effective change.

Methane is even smaller (0.00018% of the atmosphere) and has a correspondingly smaller effect.

Temperature increases with air pressure. This is not due to the ideal gas laws, but to the additional material able to receive energy from the sun per volume and it's conversion to heat. This is ignoring vertical movement of the air (which does produce heating and cooling due to ideal gas laws).

The temperature on Venus is due to the incredibly thick (and heavy) atmosphere on Venus, reaching 900 times our surface air pressure here on Earth. All that mass absorbs energy from the sun during the day (lasting several months here on Earth) and very effectively distributes that energy around to the night side, leaving the night and day temperatures of Venus virtually identical, despite the long day/night cycle.

The components of the atmosphere on Venus, mostly CO2, contribute nothing. It's the mass, not the magick properties of CO2.


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2016 02:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
wmiddlemas wrote:It is a scientific fact that C02 and Methane act as atmospheric blankets to capture and hold heat in the atmosphere.

Not only is it not a fact, you just described a violation of physics.


wmiddlemas wrote: This has been proven through geological history through ice core samples and is being proven today as C02 levels continue to rise in tandum with global warming.

There is so much wrong with this statement it is difficult to know where to begin.

1. Nothing is "proven" to be true through any kind of experiment. Things can only be proven false.

2. No violation of physics has been "proven."

3. Global Warming is not occurring to any observable degree and, as far as anyone knows, the earth could be cooling right now.

4. Even the paltry data we have indicates absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and surface temperatures.

wmiddlemas wrote: The fact that the temperature of Venus is a toasty 470 degrees C is largely caused by the high concentration of C02 in its atmosphere.

The surface temperature of Venus is due to its proximity to the sun and its extreme atmospheric pressure. The high concentration of CO2 is responsible for daytime and nighttime surface temperatures being roughly equivalent.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-04-2016 05:49
ladonnag
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
"Global Warming is not occurring to any observable degree and, as far as anyone knows, the earth could be cooling right now."

The earth overall, as a whole, is not cooling. One cannot compartmentalize a particular area and call it climate, that is referred to as WEATHER. Temperature as a whole is increasing. NASA research finds 2000-2010 is the hottest decade EVER reported. http://phys.org/news/2010-01-nasa-decade-warmest-years.html
Edited on 22-04-2016 05:51
22-04-2016 11:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
ladonnag wrote:
"Global Warming is not occurring to any observable degree and, as far as anyone knows, the earth could be cooling right now."

The earth overall, as a whole, is not cooling. One cannot compartmentalize a particular area and call it climate, that is referred to as WEATHER. Temperature as a whole is increasing. NASA research finds 2000-2010 is the hottest decade EVER reported. http://phys.org/news/2010-01-nasa-decade-warmest-years.html


And what is NASA using to measure the temperature of the Earth with? Thermometers are not even close to uniformly spaced, and great areas of the Earth have no thermometers at all.

This isn't the first stupid comment NASA has been making lately.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2016 13:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
ladonnag wrote:The earth overall, as a whole, is not cooling.

Humanity cannot measure the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. You imply that you KNOW the earth is not cooling right now, but you do not KNOW this...you merely BELIEVE it...without question. As far as you KNOW, the earth could be cooling right now. You do not have any divine knowledge that non-believers do not have.

ladonnag wrote: One cannot compartmentalize a particular area and call it climate, that is referred to as WEATHER.

Instead of telling me what "climate" is not, tell me what "climate" is...or else it's exactly whatever I say it is.

ladonnag wrote: Temperature as a whole is increasing.

It sounds like you are trying to express that your faith in Global Warming bestows upon you divine knowledge that the rest of humanity does not have.

It also sounds like your faith is based on one or more violations of physics. Would you care to elaborate?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-04-2016 17:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Into the Night wrote: This isn't the first stupid comment NASA has been making lately.

Someone at NASA must be intentionally generating these entirely bogus claims to feed that particular political interest group, i.e. the scientifically illiterate and gullible that nonetheless NEED to play pretend scientist and feel smart.

How is it that warmizombies never concern themselves with margin of error? That should be the very first concern. I suppose that if it were, this whole "average global temperature" notion would be shot down immediately, and thus Global Warming as well in the same amount of time.

[WARNING! Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings should continue reading with caution. If you begin to feel faint or your faith in "climate" begins to feel threatened, stop reading immediately]

If we approach the issue with what we know, we realize that the surface area of the earth is roughly 510 million km2 and that any given thermometer can only read the temperature accurately for one fixed point in space, not over vast areas as people such as litesong like to believe. We also know from basic calculus that the minimum margin of error for any fixed quantity of thermometers over a specific area/volume is for the thermometers to be exactly evenly spaced, i.e. deviation from even spacing directly translates into increased error/inaccuracy. Also, since a temperature is for a point in time (not for a time interval) any temperature involving multiple thermometers must be for synchronized readings. Any and all deviations from synchronicity translate directly into induced error.

We know that at any given moment, any two points that are two kilometers apart will normally differ in temperature several degrees C, especially if there are differences in elevation, terrain, et, al. Ergo, if we were to cover the entire surface of the earth with a theoretical set of 31,875,000 completely accurate (0% error), completely synchronized (with 0 latency) and exactly evenly spaced thermometers, in a grid, each 4 km apart, we would not be able to escape a base overall margin of error of several degrees C. The vast numbers of thermometers/sensors do not cancel out any error (nor does it magnify it)...it simply continues it across the entirety of the calculation.

Unfortunately all sensors are physical devices that necessarily have operating tolerances and errors and that must be calibrated. To any base margin of error we must add the non-zero error of the thermometers/sensors being used and because temperature everywhere is always changing, the always non-zero latency error translation adds even more to the accumulated overall error. The non-zero amount of time since the last calibration gets factored into any calculations as additional margin of error.

If we were to use just such a sensor grid to measure the "average global temperature" every day for two calendar years, and say our measurements were to indicate that Year-2 was 0.2degC warmer than Year-1, we would be forced to conclude that Year-2 *could* have been cooler than Year-1. Why? The difference is less than the margin of error. The average global temperature might have actually decreased 0.7degC. We wouldn't know. We couldn't know.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-04-2016 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This isn't the first stupid comment NASA has been making lately.

Someone at NASA must be intentionally generating these entirely bogus claims to feed that particular political interest group, i.e. the scientifically illiterate and gullible that nonetheless NEED to play pretend scientist and feel smart.

How is it that warmizombies never concern themselves with margin of error? That should be the very first concern. I suppose that if it were, this whole "average global temperature" notion would be shot down immediately, and thus Global Warming as well in the same amount of time.

[WARNING! Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings should continue reading with caution. If you begin to feel faint or your faith in "climate" begins to feel threatened, stop reading immediately]

If we approach the issue with what we know, we realize that the surface area of the earth is roughly 510 million km2 and that any given thermometer can only read the temperature accurately for one fixed point in space, not over vast areas as people such as litesong like to believe. We also know from basic calculus that the minimum margin of error for any fixed quantity of thermometers over a specific area/volume is for the thermometers to be exactly evenly spaced, i.e. deviation from even spacing directly translates into increased error/inaccuracy. Also, since a temperature is for a point in time (not for a time interval) any temperature involving multiple thermometers must be for synchronized readings. Any and all deviations from synchronicity translate directly into induced error.

We know that at any given moment, any two points that are two kilometers apart will normally differ in temperature several degrees C, especially if there are differences in elevation, terrain, et, al. Ergo, if we were to cover the entire surface of the earth with a theoretical set of 31,875,000 completely accurate (0% error), completely synchronized (with 0 latency) and exactly evenly spaced thermometers, in a grid, each 4 km apart, we would not be able to escape a base overall margin of error of several degrees C. The vast numbers of thermometers/sensors do not cancel out any error (nor does it magnify it)...it simply continues it across the entirety of the calculation.

Unfortunately all sensors are physical devices that necessarily have operating tolerances and errors and that must be calibrated. To any base margin of error we must add the non-zero error of the thermometers/sensors being used and because temperature everywhere is always changing, the always non-zero latency error translation adds even more to the accumulated overall error. The non-zero amount of time since the last calibration gets factored into any calculations as additional margin of error.

If we were to use just such a sensor grid to measure the "average global temperature" every day for two calendar years, and say our measurements were to indicate that Year-2 was 0.2degC warmer than Year-1, we would be forced to conclude that Year-2 *could* have been cooler than Year-1. Why? The difference is less than the margin of error. The average global temperature might have actually decreased 0.7degC. We wouldn't know. We couldn't know.

Well described.

We recently had a few days here in Seattle that were 81 degrees at the airport, and 89 degrees where I live 11 miles away. At the same time, less than 3 miles from the airport, another thermometer measured just 77 degrees. A thermometer in Snohomish (about 20 miles away) measured 67 degrees. All thermometers were within 100 ft of altitude of each other. These measurements were all taken at around 5pm that day.

The difference was caused by a compression wave coming down from the nearby mountains that affected a small area of the area east of Lake Washington.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2016 08:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Increasing sample size (covering whole Earth obviously creates a large sample size, and doing it multiple times also does) decreases the reasonable 0.05 margin of error. I realize that there is a large variance of temperatures even in a small region, but are we to expect that Rock Point is always 10 degrees cooler than Stone Valley? This is especially true for weather-created differences, which move quickly and are not tied to a specific small subregion.
14-09-2016 21:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Increasing sample size (covering whole Earth obviously creates a large sample size, and doing it multiple times also does) decreases the reasonable 0.05 margin of error. I realize that there is a large variance of temperatures even in a small region, but are we to expect that Rock Point is always 10 degrees cooler than Stone Valley? This is especially true for weather-created differences, which move quickly and are not tied to a specific small subregion.


And herein lies the problem with Rock Point and Stone Valley. We simply don't know. It is precisely because we can't expect it that the problem with margin of error occurs.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2016 23:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But as we take measurements of a thousand Stone Valleys, the chances of them all having their own peculiar Rock Point is vanishingly small. There is always, of course, error, but larger sample sizes tend to iron them out sufficiently. Is the entire Earth large enough to iron out the incredible errors that must be present in our thermometer system? I don't really know.
15-09-2016 02:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But as we take measurements of a thousand Stone Valleys, the chances of them all having their own peculiar Rock Point is vanishingly small. There is always, of course, error, but larger sample sizes tend to iron them out sufficiently. Is the entire Earth large enough to iron out the incredible errors that must be present in our thermometer system? I don't really know.

Nope. I covered all this several posts up.

What do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 04:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You failed to take into account two things:

1. The chances of all the errors being in the same direction is vanishingly small. The error is smaller than the possible error of a given thermometer.

2. We can take thousands of measurements in a year. This increases the sample size, leading to a similar error-reducing effect as above.

I do not know the specific numbers. What I am arguing is that statistically, if a given thermometer has a 40% chance of misrepresenting its location's temperature by more than 1 degree, the overall average can have a 95% percent interval of less than 1 degree.

In addition, the clustering of thermometers can be offset with the wonders of mathematics. Just decrease the weight of the value depending on the average distance to the other thermometers.
15-09-2016 04:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:1. The chances of all the errors being in the same direction is vanishingly small.

They don't cancel. They run throughout.

Are you familiar with factoring a value out of a series or integral?

It's that.

jwoodward48 wrote:2. We can take thousands of measurements in a year.

You need tens of millions of synchronized, evenly-spaced thermometers just to get ONE measurement of usable accuracy, A paltry "thousands" over an entire year is useless.


jwoodward48 wrote:In addition, the clustering of thermometers can be offset with the wonders of mathematics.

Nope. Fudging of the numbers cannot add accuracy.

jwoodward48 wrote: .Just decrease the weight of the value depending on the average distance to the other thermometers

Never fudge the raw data.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 05:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's not "fudging the raw data." It's adjusting the importance of each value based on how many existing thermometers there already are in that region.

As for the "factoring the value out of the sum," that would work IF every thermometer were incorrect by a certain value. But they aren't. Like a bell curve, there are possible errors, both positive and negative. Increasing the sample size reduces the chance of errors or flukes affecting the data.

As for "we already have millions of thermometers, adding thousands does nothing," do you understand arithmetic? It's not adding a thousand thermometers. It's taking a thousand measurements with each thermometers. That's multiplication. As for synchronization, how does that matter? Just have them say "I measured 76 degrees at Stone Point on the 25th of May, 9:34 AM." Done. Synchronized. (Milliseconds don't really matter.)
15-09-2016 05:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:It's not "fudging the raw data."
That's exactly what it is. "Weighting" is fudging, so is "adjusting" the data. Any modification will get your data tossed like yesterday's garbage. You'll be reminded that anyone can change data to achieve desired pre-determined conclusions.

As you watch your data get thrown into the circular file you'll hear the words "Come back when you can bring us unaltered data."

All modification of data equates to fudging, cooking, doctoring, fiddling, inventing, concocting, fabricating and a whole host of words involving notable creativity.

Don't fukc with raw data.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 06:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You ever taken Stat? I just described a weighted average, which is a very simple example of statistics. If you don't think it's possible for mathematics to help you improve accuracy of an inaccurate measurement, cast your eye about the internet. Examples abound.

What, you want me to specify exactly what I mean? I didn't think that was expected. After all, have you ever done that?
Edited on 15-09-2016 07:13
15-09-2016 09:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You ever taken Stat? I just described a weighted average, which is a very simple example of statistics. If you don't think it's possible for mathematics to help you improve accuracy of an inaccurate measurement, cast your eye about the internet. Examples abound.

What, you want me to specify exactly what I mean? I didn't think that was expected. After all, have you ever done that?


The problem with weighted inputs to the sampling of any statistics process is that you are violating the basic requirement of statistics sampling, which MUST be sampled using a random element independent of the data.

IBDaMann showed it doesn't work.

Perhaps a more practical example will illustrate this.

The city of Seattle has one thousand thermometers all measuring a temperature. The city of Issaquah (10 miles east or so) has only a few dozen. A point just 10 miles from that in the midst of the foothills of the Cascade range has no thermometers at all. The nearest one is Issaquah.

What is the temperature in Everett (just a few miles north of Seattle)? Does it have anything to do with any kind of average you come up with?

No.

Despite Everett's proximity to Seattle, the weather there is often quite different than that of Seattle. Everett's temperature has nothing to do with Seattle, Isaquah, or a point somewhere in the Cascade foothills.

It can often be snowing hard in Everett while Seattle is enjoying a fairly warm sunny day.

This is compounded when you consider that vast tracts of the world that have no thermometers at all.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2016 15:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, but this error could be made in either direction. Each thermometer could be a good representative of its region, a too-warm one, or a too-cold one - but the probability of all thermometers being too-warm is vanishingly small. Increasing the sample size decreases the error margin for a 95% acceptability.
15-09-2016 15:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, but this error could be made in either direction. Each thermometer could be a good representative of its region, a too-warm one, or a too-cold one - but the probability of all thermometers being too-warm is vanishingly small. Increasing the sample size decreases the error margin for a 95% acceptability.

This was already addressed. Either you understand basic factoring or you don't. If you understand factoring (as in basic multiplication and division) then you have your answer. If you don't then you should probably learn that before you make any more futile attempts to address the topic.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-09-2016 00:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You can't just bring the error out of the sum and leave it as it is. It will get a steeper and steeper probability curve as the sample size increases.

Let's say that I have a thermometer that uses the bell curve to determine what it calls the temperature. (It has perfect sensing, but is actually a viciously humourous AI or such.) The chances of significant error are high.

Now let's suppose that I have ten such thermometers. Importantly, the AIs within each thermometer are not allowed to communicate - they have no way of organizing their error. If I add up the bell curves and divide the graph's y-values by 10, this gives the probability curve of total error. Note...

Oh, shit. The bell curves are identical. That means that adding them up is like multiplying by 10. I just described how *10 and /10 are apparently not inverse functions


Yeah, I messed up. I'll have to think some more about the issue.
27-02-2017 20:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
wmiddlemas wrote:
It is a scientific fact that C02 and Methane act as atmospheric blankets to capture and hold heat in the atmosphere. This has been proven through geological history through ice core samples and is being proven today as C02 levels continue to rise in tandum with global warming. The fact that the temperature of Venus is a toasty 470 degrees C is largely caused by the high concentration of C02 in its atmosphere.


Firstly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#/media/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

As you can see the growth of methane in the atmosphere since the "accelerated" growth of CO2 is 8% in 30 years. It has risen from less than nothing to slight less than nothing. Methane is a reactive molecule that reacts with Hydroxyl radicals. This is a form of WATER that is modified by solar radiation of the levels of this have not changed. Methane is also naturally produced plants, animals and wetlands. It is held in suspension in permafrost and released upon thawing. The ultra-slow growth of this methane suggests that it is the thawing of the ice packs that are the source of this and not man.

As for CO2 being a "greenhouse gas" you are entirely incorrect:

http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

The science behind the growth of CO2 leading to a growth in temperature was poorly done and incorrect.

The "blanket effect" you are talking about is the atmosphere AS A WHOLE and not the gases that comprise it although water vapor and droplets in which the clouds are composed effect the climate far more than anything else.

Do not be led about by the nose by people who profit from your ignorance of these highly technical things.

The atmosphere of Venus is HOT not because it is CO2 but because ALL of the gases present in the surface and upper mantle have been cooked out by the proximity of the Sun. The effects of this has a surprising effect - the "midnight" side of Venus has the same temperature as the high noon side. The rotation of Venus and the orbital period are very close to the same so the NIGHT is almost a year long. What would Earth be like with a year long night? Do you suppose it would be as hot as the noon side? Before life formed the Earth's atmosphere was composed of some 40% CO2 and the Earth did not stay hot - in fact it wasn't all that much hotter than today. And without the rotational period of the Earth AND the presence of the Moon life would never have formed on Earth. The Moon slowed and stabilized the rotational period of the Earth.
Edited on 27-02-2017 21:03
28-02-2017 00:51
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Wake wrote:As for CO2 being a "greenhouse gas" you are entirely incorrect:
http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
... water vapor and droplets in which the clouds are composed effect the climate far more than anything else.


Gary Novak, microbiologist, has no climate science experience.
Non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHG CO2 AND FEEDBACKS control phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND FEEDBACKS.
Edited on 28-02-2017 01:11
08-05-2017 23:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
wmiddlemas wrote:
It is a scientific fact that C02 and Methane act as atmospheric blankets to capture and hold heat in the atmosphere. This has been proven through geological history through ice core samples and is being proven today as C02 levels continue to rise in tandum with global warming. The fact that the temperature of Venus is a toasty 470 degrees C is largely caused by the high concentration of C02 in its atmosphere.


It is not a "scientific fact". It was a theory put forward in the mid-1800's that upon measurement was never found to be true. Even dumb-ass Bill Nye proclaimed that a simple experiment would prove CO2 to be a "greenhouse gas" and explained the experiment. Then when people tried his experiment it proved just the opposite of what the claim was.

The entire idea of greenhouse gas teeters on the occurrence of a 15 uM band of radiation either from the Earth or from the lowest end of the Sun's emissions.

The band from the Sun is so slight that none of it ever makes it's way through the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. Likewise the emissions from the Earth is at the top end of the emission band and there is so little that it is completely absorbed by the original 280 ppm. So additional CO2 has no effect.

What the idiots are trying to scare people with is a trace gas that even at this "elevated level" is only one molecule out of every 2500. What's more the additional CO2 could ONLY absorb none-existent energy while H2O is 4,000 times more common and absorbs in virtually every IR frequency with only a few holes here and there.

Much of the "scientific fact" is based entirely on charts that are totally mis-scaled and invented purposely to mislead people without scientific training.




Join the debate What is the Problem Presented by CO2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase9718-08-2019 10:00
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)2031-07-2019 23:12
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact