mop
5000+ posts
06/17/11 10:32 AM
|
|
Texoz....that is a silly, myopic response. it's like saying that breathing in our homes is warming up the houses. While it is true, it is not very helpful because it ignores the fact that most of us have thermostats which cool the house in response to any warming we add. The same is true for the earth except we haven't even begun to understand all of the different ways the earth moderates any warming that might be added.
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
06/17/11 10:37 AM
|
|
paso, are you purposely being obtuse? the peer review paper i linked to was from May and suggests that we have been mistaken about our understanding of TSI and that it might be 6 times more significant than we have thought in the past. TSI is related to sunspots, so a paper that works of of an old understanding of TSI's impact on earths climate is possibly missing the mark by about 83%.
As for how this drop off in the sun's activity might affect earth's temperatures....read a NASA page from 2003:
sun's brightness
Post Extras:
|
Texoz
5000+ posts
06/18/11 08:11 PM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: mop] |
| |
In reply to:
Texoz....that is a silly, myopic response. it's like saying that breathing in our homes is warming up the houses. While it is true, it is not very helpful because it ignores the fact that most of us have thermostats which cool the house in response to any warming we add. The same is true for the earth except we haven't even begun to understand all of the different ways the earth moderates any warming that might be added.
really weak analogy.
you can't simultaneously agree that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas AND say that adding more CO2 to the climate model doesn't have any effect.
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
06/18/11 11:06 PM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: Texoz] |
| |
In reply to:
you can't simultaneously agree that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas AND say that adding more CO2 to the climate model doesn't have any effect.
let's try this Texoz:
"you can't simultaneously agree that urine is a liquid AND say that adding more urine to the ocean isn't raising sea levels."
does that help?
i don't question the physics of CO2 trapping heat...i question the succeeding reactions of the atmosphere to added CO2.....
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
06/19/11 09:16 AM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: mop] |
| |
In reply to:
i question the succeeding reactions of the atmosphere to added CO2
Seriously, MOP. You question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
06/19/11 09:26 AM
|
|
Adding urine, especially by the gigaton, does raise sea levels, no?
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
06/19/11 11:39 AM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: GT WT] |
| |
In reply to:
Seriously, MOP. You question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
not at all GT....read my posts, I was fairly clear man. I don't question what CO2 would do in a vacuum...i question the impact that it has in a massive system that is also highly dynamic. that's why i compared man's contribution to CO2 content to being similar to a man peeing in the ocean.
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
06/19/11 11:41 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Adding urine, especially by the gigaton, does raise sea levels, no?
yes...but only at very tiny levels (even a gigaton of urine would add negligible amounts to sea levels). my point is that our influence on earth's temperatures is drowned out significantly by a host of other far more influential variables.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
06/20/11 05:52 AM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: mop] |
| |
In reply to:
that's why i compared man's contribution to CO2 content to being similar to a man peeing in the ocean.
So, in your scientific opinion, the release of fossil CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution, is the equivalent of a man urinating in the ocean?
Oh, my.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
Texoz
5000+ posts
06/25/11 11:10 AM
|
|
serious logic fail
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
06/25/11 11:43 AM
|
|
We have increased CO2 about 40% from preindustrial levels. It has gone from around 260 ppm to almost 400 ppm. I have no idea what the average depth of the ocean is (10,000 ft?), but this would be like raising sea level 4,000 feet. I would barely be above water and I am at 4,200 feet on the side of a mountain about 400 miles from the nearest ocean which would now be conveniently located just down the hill from me.
Quite frankly, the analogy doesn't really work other than to show that the amount of the CO2 increase is very significant.
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
Coelacanth
2500+ posts
06/25/11 12:39 PM
|
|
You guys are reading the analogy this way...
> urine: ocean::volume of pre-industrial CO2: volume of post-industrial CO2
But I think the analogy is more along the following lines...
> urine: ocean::volume of CO2: volume of total atmosphere
And so let's re-consider the analogy, slightly modified. A 60% increase in urine discharge would be much more problematic in a bath tub than in a swimming pool, and in the same way it would be more problematic in a swimming pool than in Lake Michigan, and thus in Lake Michigan than in the Atlantic Ocean.
Mop is saying that our increase in CO2 discharge, when we take into account the entirety of the atmosphere, is akin to pissing into the Atlantic. I think that's overstating it a bit in terms of relative volumes involved (I would guess that the swimming pool would be about right), but the point is well made, and the analogy works.
Post Extras:
|
Ag with kids
5000+ posts
06/25/11 12:43 PM
|
|
In reply to:
We have increased CO2 about 40% from preindustrial levels. It has gone from around 260 ppm to almost 400 ppm. I have no idea what the average depth of the ocean is (10,000 ft?), but this would be like raising sea level 4,000 feet. I would barely be above water and I am at 4,200 feet on the side of a mountain about 400 miles from the nearest ocean which would now be conveniently located just down the hill from me.
Another way to represent it would be to say it's gone from 0.026% of the atmosphere to 0.04% of the atmosphere...
Eric '90
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
Post Extras:
|
Texoz
5000+ posts
06/25/11 12:54 PM
|
|
Let's look at this another way.
What was the amount of CFCs released into the atmosphere, and at what point did that release start the degradation process of the ozone layer?
In other words. We already have an example of man releasing chemicals into the atmosphere and having an impact on the atmospheric balance.
If you want to argue that CO2's influence on the atmosphere is infinitesimal because of the shear volume of the atmosphere vs the volume of CO2 you're skating on thin ice. Plus, you're ignoring the basic science of equilibrium in a chemical reaction.
In many reactions you don't need large amounts of material to tip the balance, or initiate the reaction.
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
07/01/11 12:06 PM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: Texoz] |
| |
Texoz….i have no problem agreeing with much of what you wrote. i know that certain types of chemicals could rapidly degrade our environment (and have)….but i still have serious doubts that CO2 fits into that category considering what we know about its radically different distributions over geological history.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
07/02/11 07:22 AM
|
|
In reply to:
but i still have serious doubts
MOP, on what are your doubts based? Is it your own education and training? Or is it the 'faith' you have in experts. If the latter, why put more weight in their opinion than in the opinions of the mass of climate scientists who believe that climate change is real an based in part on man's release of CO2?
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
Coelacanth
2500+ posts
07/02/11 07:39 AM
|
|
In reply to:
MOP, on what are your doubts based?
He already said that his doubts were based on "what we know about its [CO2's] radically different distributions over geological history."
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
07/02/11 10:14 AM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: GT WT] |
| |
Coel nailed it, but to expound, I also am very disturbed by the incredible LACK of knowledge we have about so many areas incredibly pertinent to the question of global temperatures. For instance, we know precious little about cloud formation and how an increase or decrease in global cloud coverage affects global termperatures. we also really don't understand how sunspots or total solar irradiance affect global temperatures. in fact, as i have posted on here, in the month of May a new solar study came out that suggested the sun's TSI has had 600% of the affect that we used to think it had.
these sort of discoveries can singlehandedly demolish any notion of CO2 being the primary driver of global temperature rises over the past Century. Considering the climate is an incredibly chaotic and dynamic system, I think we have just begun to delve into all the many variables that influence it.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
07/03/11 08:31 AM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: mop] |
| |
In reply to:
we know precious little about cloud formation and how an increase or decrease in global cloud coverage affects global termperatures. we also really don't understand how sunspots or total solar irradiance affect global temperatures
What I'm asking, MOP, is the basis of the expertise referenced in the 'we know' or 'we don't know statements. When you use the first person pronoun (albeit plural) are you referring to your own expertise? If not, which expert opinion are you referring to?
In reply to:
singlehandedly demolish any notion of CO2 being the primary driver of global temperature rises
MOP, I'm sure you understand that no legitimate climate scientist has ever claimed that energy captured from the sun isn't the major driver of climate. The basis of anthropogenic climate change is that greenhouse gases derived from fossil CO2 are increasing the retention of solar energy in the earth's atmosphere. Even if the percent change in retention is small (relatively speaking it is) the change is away from equilibrium - the atmosphere is warming.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
07/03/11 12:46 PM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: GT WT] |
| |
In reply to:
What I'm asking, MOP, is the basis of the expertise referenced in the 'we know' or 'we don't know statements. When you use the first person pronoun (albeit plural) are you referring to your own expertise? If not, which expert opinion are you referring to?
not referring to my "expertise" but i am referring to my ability to read trustworthy sources and determine that the distribution of CO2 throughout geological time has varied wildly and there have been FAR higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than current levels. do you dispute this claim of mine?
Post Extras:
|
Shop the Co-op |
Email A Friend |
Contact Us
Become a HornFans Sponsor
Pages in this thread: 
Rate thread
Print Thread
