The President's Commision on Global Warming | Page 9 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9933 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


And here we go again, round and round the point.

Why can't we use typical or average values for a substance like baby powder to see how a 350ppm concentration would affect the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface? That concentration of food coloring in water changes the color (and I presume the amount of visible light that passes through it) considerably. Of course, I am a layman and this is a ridiculous, not at all useful example, right?

Why can't we estimate how much such a small concentration of CO2 would impede the infrared radiation out into space?

How come you can tell me all the ways the models are wrong, but you can't give me a model that's right, and explain why it's right?

How can your entire argument consist of simply dismissing the supposed effects of CO2 due to its "insignificance", and then alluding to dozens of factors that are seemingly too insignificant, impractical, or difficult to include in most models? Isn't the reason we create models because we simply don't have perfect information about the system being modeled?

Honestly, I feel like half of your responses to me have attacked the words I used rather than the ideas I wrote about. Whenever I ask for approximations, you say it would be pointless because of this and that and the other thing. When I ask a straightforward, simple question, instead of an answer I get a paragraph about how my question has absolutely no bearing on the topic being discussed.

I tend to take the minority view (among present company) on a lot of topics because I think very few issues are as black and white as people make them out to be. It's fun to argue, and it usually gets people thinking on both sides.

But not this board. You guys are some of the most bull-headed people I've ever had the displeasure of conversing with.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9933 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

do you have actual data...or is this another one of your "beliefs", acolyte?

All of the estimates I have found point to a range between 5 billion and 25 billion tons added per year.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
UpToPar
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
6319 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Some of us seem to be better at adapting than others.


Saw this little gem, and now know to simply read over your post relating to science in any way.






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9933 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Saw this little gem, and now know to simply read over your post relating to science in any way.

Sweet, one fewer condescending a-hole to argue with.



By the way, it was a joke. The adapting part, not the condescending a-hole part






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Ratsofftoyou
Auburn Fan
Member since Oct 2011
157 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


So much Dunning-Kruger in this thread. Why don't you all go take a course in paleoclimatology or read some Geophysical Research Letters instead of proudly displaying your ignorance of topic at hand. Instead of rejecting the conclusions being made in climate research because certain results seem non-intuitive, how about you investigate the evidence and reasoning behind claims you find uncomfortable to your worldview.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
catnip
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
10411 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


Phoney baloney! Will the presidents task force report that BW caused by people cannot be substantiated? Can you possible think they would or do they have strict instructions to find that there is global warming and we need more taxes to fix what they find? So its a waste of money and a theatrical script to prove that BW exist when he can save the money he likes to spend by executive privilege? Something he also like to play with the American people.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
faxis
LSU Fan
La.
Member since Oct 2007
7773 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


Climate 'modeling' is the modern day equivalent of reading goat entrails.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52945 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Are you seriously arguing that increasing the amount released by 3% won't rapidly increase the amount that remains in the atmosphere?
This coming from the person who posted
quote:

No amount of increased vegetation that would result could be that off switch? Is it not at all possible that if temperature and CO2 rose slowly, that plants could grow faster and spread and eventually catch up to compensate for it and absorb the excess CO2? No chance at all?
Really?

Obviously since we're referencing 3.27% of the 3% in a 3%-to-93% equilibrium, 3.27% of 3% would not noticeably impact balance.
Certainly not to the extent it would increase CO2 levels 39% from 280ppm to 391ppm.
But even if it did, you've already insisted a probable response would be voluminous ultra-rapid plant growth. Correct?

quote:

Imagine 100 cars are waiting in line at a crossing guard who lets 1 car per minute pass. All day, 1 additional car per minute arrives at the back of the line. At the end of the day, there are still 100 cars in line.
But you are insisting in your posts that at the end of the day, there are now 1000 cars in line, not 100. CO2 has supposedly increased 39%. Yet fossil fuel accounts for just 3.27% of atmospheric CO2 . . . and of course the 3.27% presumption negates any fossil fuel contributions prior to the 280ppm "baseline".






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9933 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

you've already insisted a probable response would be voluminous ultra-rapid plant growth. Correct?

Nope, I said a response would likely be very slow plant growth and spread, but eventually over centuries enough to counteract a natural increase in CO2. The entire argument here is that the human contribution is enough to outpace that slow plant growth. How can you still, this far into the thread, keep misinterpreting what I'm saying? You seem pretty smart, so I have to think it's intentional.

quote:

But you are insisting in your posts that at the end of the day, there are now 1000 cars in line, not 100.

I am not insisting that at all. Let's do it again, except this time with a vessel of water with a bilge pump. The pump (representing the natural processes that remove CO2) removes 1 liter per minute, and we add 1 liter per minute to represent the natural contributions to CO2. It doesn't matter how much water we start with, the level will not change as long as the pump removes the same amount we (the environment) add. Now let's start adding an additional 30ml per minute to represent the human contribution (3%, right?). If the initial amount of water in the vessel was 1 liter, it will only take 13 minutes to increase that level by 39% (390ml, 1.39L total).

You can argue that a 39% increase on an insignificant amount is still insignificant, but I don't see how you can argue that tipping the scales of a natural process by 3% won't have a large impact in a relatively short amount of time.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52945 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

You can argue that a 39% increase on an insignificant amount is still insignificant, but I don't see how you can argue that tipping the scales of a natural process by 3% won't have a large impact in a relatively short amount of time.
You've invented a non-equilibrium in which CO2 biosphere-ocean sequesters are saturated to the point the system cannot handle a 0.09% increase in total CO2 content.

Now explain again how that will not lead to incineration given warmist theory.
93% of CO2 in the Ocean -- released with increasing "greenhouse heat". 0.09% of CO2 released via fossil fuel. Yet you argue the former can be compensated with vegetation, and the latter cannot.

See the problem?






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9933 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

You've invented a non-equilibrium in which CO2 biosphere-ocean sequesters are saturated to the point the system cannot handle a 0.09% increase in total CO2 content.

Why do you insist on expressing the increase of CO2 as a fraction of the total amount of CO2 on the planet, including what is trapped in the oceans, rather than of the volume of CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere? Do you believe that it doesn't matter into what part of the cycle we put the CO2, the effect will be the same? Are you saying that if, instead of putting the CO2 directly into the air, we could dissolve it in the ocean and it will be the same thing? Do you not see the flaw in this logic?

Let's take my vessel (the atmosphere) example from before and expand upon it. Replace the fixed-rate bilge pump with a hole in the bottom to represent the rate CO2 is re-absorbed by the ocean. As the vessel builds more head, more water should flow out of the hole, right? Is this a reasonable way to imagine how the earth might increase CO2 absorption as atmospheric levels rise? Might not be an off switch, but it is a dimmer. Now, in addition to our "atmosphere" vessel, we have a much larger "ocean" vessel. It is similar to the atmosphere vessel, except the ocean vessel drains into the atmosphere vessel. Whatever drains from our atmosphere vessel is then put back into the "ocean" to complete the cycle. At the start, both vessels drain about the same rate of flow that we will say is 1 liter per minute, and at this time the atmosphere vessel has about 1 liter of water in it. One liter comes in, one liter goes out. The level in the atmosphere stays the same.

Now let's imagine that as we put each liter that drains from the atmosphere back into the "ocean", we add 30ml to it at this point in the cycle. As you said, since 93% of the total water (CO2) in our system is in the "ocean", the ocean level will be barely impacted, and same goes for the drain flow as a result of this minutely increased pressure. Barely more than 1 liter per minute will drain into the "atmosphere", and the level in the atmosphere vessel will rise very slowly, if at all.

Now instead of adding those 30ml to each liter as we return it to the "ocean", let's put those 30ml directly into the atmosphere vessel with each liter that naturally drains into it. Do you not see how the atmosphere level will rise much more quickly if it is added at this point in the cycle? It's the difference between, as you keep pointing out, tipping the scales by 3% vs. by 0.09%.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52945 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Why do you insist on expressing the increase of CO2 as a fraction of the total amount of CO2 on the planet, including what is trapped in the oceans, rather than of the volume of CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere? Do you believe that it doesn't matter into what part of the cycle we put the CO2, the effect will be the same? Are you saying that if, instead of putting the CO2 directly into the air, we could dissolve it in the ocean and it will be the same thing? Do you not see the flaw in this logic?
Good God Almighty!
I assumed you actually understood the concept of equilibrium. I was wrong.

Apologies for the assumption.






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9933 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Good God Almighty!
I assumed you actually understood the concept of equilibrium. I was wrong.

Apologies for the assumption.

Enough with the condescension. It's tiring, not at all helpful, and is a blatant distraction to absolve you from having to explain how I'm wrong.

Tell me how the vessel analogy is not a decent, high-level description of the difference between adding CO2 to different parts of the cycle. How about instead of adding water, we drip food coloring into one of the vessels. If we drip it into the huge ocean vessel, that small concentration will very, very slowly change the color of the ocean water, and hence the atmosphere. If we drip it into the atmosphere vessel directly, the ocean color will still change at about the same rate as before as the drained atmosphere water is added back to it. It is largely unaffected by where the color is added. The much smaller atmosphere vessel, though, will change color drastically if we add the color directly to it. The part of the cycle at which outside forces come into play make a huge difference in the result.

Don't just call me stupid, tell me why I'm stupid. Explain to me and everyone else why you are so much smarter than I am.

I don't question whether you have a lot of knowledge on the subject. What I question is whether you are able to apply your knowledge in ways you haven't been taught to. I feel like what you know is preventing you from thinking about something that at first glance appears to be at odds with what you know to be true. You can't see the forest for the trees.







Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top