- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: are there still people who still believe the earth is warming and man caused it?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:30 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:30 am to Taxing Authority
quote:I'm not sure what you are trying to explain with this analogy. Yeah, the temperature of the water in the tub would approach that of the input water, at a rate determined by the input/output rates. How close it gets to that temperature, though, depends on how quickly the tub water is losing heat.
The residence time of any particular molecule of water is irrelevant. For example... if you had a bathtub with the drain open, and the faucet set to the same flow rate as the drain... if you kept the flow rate the same while turning off the cold water and opening the hot water... the flux would be the same, amount of water in the tub would remain the same. But the temperature surely wouldn't.
quote:Well certainly, and I haven't heard of a model that considers water vapor irrelevant. Have you?
Indeed! As anyone that has attempted to model the weather can attest! But because something is difficult to measure, and difficult to model, doesn’t mean it’s contribution is irrelevant. Classic modeler’s error.
Though clearly it isn't uniform or averageable™, it certainly has a large effect on surface temperatures and albedo.
quote:Can you quantify the change?
The concentration change from 200-400ppm of CO2 hardly changes the thermodynamic properties of air at all.
quote:I know what happens to water vapor. Its concentration in the air is limited by temperature, and it is highly variable from one town to the next and from one hour to the next. And its GW properties are pretty well understood and accounted for.
A quick look a psychrometric chart will give you and idea what happens to water vapor.
quote:
The point was, no such experimentation has occurred. Your claim that the effects of CO2 have been verified by testing was probably imprecise.
The experiment I referenced simply tried to test whether radiative forcing models were correct, and the results were consistent with the calculations. I believe there are plans for a new satellite which will provide more accurate/better results pretty soon.
quote:
Absolutely. But the idea that CO2 increases absorption-thus temperatures go up-is a single-variable model for the entire climate. A bit over simplistic, yes?
No doubt, and I don't think I or anyone has ever claimed that climate models only care about one variable.
quote:Again, of course water vapor is a factor.
Compared to CO2... Water-vapor has the ability to transport far more heat from warmer to colder areas (both vertically and horizontally) than CO2 has to absorb heat. Given it wild variation in distribution, and directionality... is it dismissible?
quote:Which is..?
Water has a unique property CO2 does not share.
quote:What is the point here?quote:Indeed. But not in the same locations.
Latent heat works both ways.
0
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:42 am to Taxing Authority
The false prophets of AGW want total control of environmental issues around the planet which will cost everyone money. The largest amount of financing their desires will be coming from the first world nations and the citizens of them, along with setting back the ideas of productivity in the nations to make them look like third world nations.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:45 am to League Champs
quote:The fact that Mars also happens to be warming now is a coincidence. Some planets are warming, some are cooling. It is mostly determined by their orbit eccentricity. And the effect of CO2 is diminished with increasing concentration.. it is logarithmic. However, we can measure Mars' albedo and the amount of sunlight it receives to calculate its expected temperature, yet it is warmer than expected. Well wouldn't you know that the same calculations we use here on earth to determine the effect of CO2 on our temperatures can be used for Mars. And the measurements are consistent with the calculations.
Its a fact that both planets are warming during the same time frame, yet Mars has way, way, way more Co2 than Earth. To blame increases on Co2 on one planet and ignore the effect of the sun on both, is well, farcical.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:46 am to catholictigerfan
quote:You mean unspin the spin which was quoted, right?
thanks NC now let's see how the GW activist spin this
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:50 am to Korkstand
quote:
And the effect of CO2 is diminished with increasing concentration.. it is logarithmic
Really? So you agree then, that any additional increases in concentration will have a decreasing effect on the current "warming trend"? I mean, we're not going to get back down to 18th century CO2 concentrations anytime soon - so why spend trillions trying if the increases will have a decreasing effect (assuming CO2 is even having much of an effect in the first place)?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:55 am to GumboPot
quote:Because we are in what should be a natural cooling period for the Earth. Our temperatures are higher than they should be based on that information, assuming future temperatures could be projected from that data.
1.) Based on current CO2 concentrations, why isn't our average global temperature higher?
quote:Most likely extra-terrestrial/orbital variations.
2.) What was the trigger for the first three warming periods?
quote:Naturally, they lag, and then amplify via feedback. What happens to that chart as we continue to force CO2 concentrations to lead, though, is yet to be seen.
3.) Do you believe CO2 concentrations lag or lead temperature?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:03 am to Korkstand
quote:
Naturally, they lag, and then amplify via feedback.
And you agree that this is a natural cycle that appears multiple times in the record, predating the burning of fossil fuels?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:06 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Really? So you agree then, that any additional increases in concentration will have a decreasing effect on the current "warming trend"? I mean, we're not going to get back down to 18th century CO2 concentrations anytime soon - so why spend trillions trying if the increases will have a decreasing effect (assuming CO2 is even having much of an effect in the first place)?
Decreasing, yes, but still considerable. At ~400ppm, it can still double a whole lot of times before the effect is negligible.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:07 am to Ace Midnight
quote:Yes, I said that, but did you read the following sentence?quote:And you agree that this is a natural cycle that appears multiple times in the record, predating the burning of fossil fuels?
Naturally, they lag, and then amplify via feedback.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:08 am to Korkstand
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:11 am to Ace Midnight
quote:Actually it is likely we could get back down to 18th century CO2 concentrations by enhancing biomechanisms, if simply addressing atmospheric CO2 was the objective.
I mean, we're not going to get back down to 18th century CO2 concentrations anytime soon
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:14 am to Korkstand
quote:
Yes, I said that, but did you read the following sentence?
Sure - do we spend trillions on measure to prepare for "what remains to be seen"?
That's akin to saying we need to spend trillions to prepare for meteors/asteroids because "what remains to be seen" if a giant one hits?
This post was edited on 1/7/14 at 11:15 am
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:19 am to NC_Tigah
So the notion now is that without the effects of CO2 the Earth would be cooling, but the CO2 is interrupting the "natural cycle" and thus we are where we are today/
First question, I don't remember Al Gore and the GW crowd predicting this, did they?
Second question, when they predicted an mini ice age of sorts several decades ago, man was charged as the culprit and we were told we had to mend our ways or else. Now we hear that we are actually warming the planet, and keeping it from tilting to an ice age. What does that say about the scientists who repeatedly warn us to change when in reality it seems we are helping to stabilize the Earth's temperatures(if you can really believe that)?
First question, I don't remember Al Gore and the GW crowd predicting this, did they?
Second question, when they predicted an mini ice age of sorts several decades ago, man was charged as the culprit and we were told we had to mend our ways or else. Now we hear that we are actually warming the planet, and keeping it from tilting to an ice age. What does that say about the scientists who repeatedly warn us to change when in reality it seems we are helping to stabilize the Earth's temperatures(if you can really believe that)?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:23 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
That's akin to saying we need to spend trillions to prepare for meteors/asteroids because "what remains to be seen" if a giant one hits?
Actually, this would make more sense, because there is actual hard scientific evidence of past events of this nature, and reliable evidence of potential impacts in the relatively near future.
There is ZERO such evidence of AGW/"man made" CC that would warrant these expenditures, or anything close to it.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:23 am to doubleb
quote:
So the notion now is that without the effects of CO2 the Earth would be cooling, but the CO2 is interrupting the "natural cycle" and thus we are where we are today/
Warm air holds more CO2. Once the warming trend reverses, and the air cools down - concentrations will drop again - however, our activities will affect this - I'm not disputing that - just the degree and ultimate impact on surface temperatures - which I believe will be slight - no more than a few tenths.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:32 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Sure - do we spend trillions on measure to prepare for "what remains to be seen"?
That's akin to saying we need to spend trillions to prepare for meteors/asteroids because "what remains to be seen" if a giant one hits?
I worded it poorly, but "what remains to be seen" is, in the eyes and research of the vast majority of those who study it, a somewhat predictable result. Should we spend "trillions" on it? No, but I think now is the time to stop denying and instead be conscious of it.
And since you mentioned it, we need to spend as much as necessary to at least give us enough warning of an asteroid impact, and then whenever that warning is issued we should devote our entire budget and existence to prepare for and avoid it.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:32 am to udtiger
quote:
Actually, this would make more sense, because there is actual hard scientific evidence of past events of this nature, and reliable evidence of potential impacts in the relatively near future.
Please provide some evidence then. And define "relatively near future"
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:34 am to doubleb
quote:The "mini ice age" predictions were overblown in the media back then. There was speculation that aerosols and their cooling effect would overpower CO2 and its warming effect, but most in the field still predicted warming.
when they predicted an mini ice age of sorts several decades ago, man was charged as the culprit and we were told we had to mend our ways or else. Now we hear that we are actually warming the planet, and keeping it from tilting to an ice age. What does that say about the scientists who repeatedly warn us to change when in reality it seems we are helping to stabilize the Earth's temperatures(if you can really believe that)?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:39 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Warm air holds more CO2. Once the warming trend reverses, and the air cools down - concentrations will drop again
It's not that warm air holds more CO2, it's that warm air warms the oceans, and warmer oceans hold less CO2 and release it into the atmosphere.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 11:44 am to Korkstand
quote:
And since you mentioned it, we need to spend as much as necessary to at least give us enough warning of an asteroid impact, and then whenever that warning is issued we should devote our entire budget and existence to prepare for and avoid it.
I completely agree.
The threat from AGW is not nearly as serious - and without a cost effective alternative to burning fossil fuels, even in the mid-term, I believe we should continue to make progress towards sustainable energy for that day, however many years from now, when that source of energy is expended.
Until then, I am against taxing energy to attack this "problem", I'm against demonizing the very people and industry that allows everything else in modern society to work, and I'm against sitting around in the dark, freezing to death.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News