| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility points for you. a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Nope, no additional circular logic required. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened before. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1; http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your argument very hard to support. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility points for you. You interrupted at "if there were, then". How many brownie points does that earn you? a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Nope, One brownie point for me, I interrupted you. no Two brownie points for me, I interrupted you. additional Three brownie points for me, I interrupted you. circular Four brownie points for me, I interrupted you. logic required. Five brownie points for me, I interrupted you. I win your childish game 5:1. Don't have much credibility, do you? |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility points for you. You interrupted at "if there were, then". How many brownie points does that earn you? Your first sentence, which you had already posted previously, discredited everything else you said. A second time. When you altered the follow-ups it showed you are also a coward. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On May 6, 5:28*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message .. . Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? *A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, *constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, *but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, *constitute proof. Any more questions?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - yeah. you really want to see "polar water at -32 F"? |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
"z" wrote in message ... On May 6, 5:28 pm, "Androcles" wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message .. . Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - yeah. you really want to see "polar water at -32 F"? ======================================== No, I don't want to see it, it looks like this: http://www.shultz.com/North%20Pole/P...20cap%2004.jpg Any more questions? |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility points for you. You interrupted at "if there were, then". How many brownie points does that earn you? Your first sentence, which you had already posted previously, discredited everything else you said. A second time. Ok, let's try this. What on Earth is this? 51° 2'16.63"N 0°41'53.21"E Feel free to use Google Earth and type in "Time Team". When you altered the follow-ups it showed you are also a coward. Snipping shows you are a miserable **** and a moron. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. Q -- The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On May 8, 3:44*pm, qqq_qqq wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message . .. Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? *A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by *an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, *but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, *constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. * You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other things. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is significant in causing global warming. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that time. Q -- The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened before. Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have happened before. Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as irrational as well as junk science. To elaborate, the ice core data proves that: 1) There have been past warming and cooling periods. 2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming cycle. Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't say their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non- warming doesn't explain past warming either. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1; http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm Appeal to authority fallacy is noted. What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got it wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of man made "greenhouse gasses". Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the atmosphere. See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website: http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg 5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%. Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your argument very hard to support. If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it. You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a disaster for humans. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:44:02 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. Yes. At best, 0.07 degrees C, down in the noise level. See, for example, Khilyuk and Chilingar, "Are we confusing cause and effect?" 2003. The problem is that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it absorbs in 3 IR bands, and H2O absorbs in two of those bands. The additional "greenhouse" effect of the CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welder's goggles. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) So, your rebuttal again is a mindless argumentum ad hominem fallacy, and circular logic fallacy: we caused the increase because of the increase. Am I supposed to respect that pile of fallacies as an argument? There is no way I'd fall for it. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. Your inability to make a rational reply is noted. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On May 8, 3:44 pm, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other things. CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is significant in causing global warming. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that time. The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now, it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning. Q -- The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:44:02 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. Yes. At best, 0.07 degrees C, down in the noise level. See, for example, Khilyuk and Chilingar, "Are we confusing cause and effect?" 2003. A lie, since 1880 we got about +1C. The problem is that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it absorbs in 3 IR bands, and H2O absorbs in two of those bands. The additional "greenhouse" effect of the CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welder's goggles. Non-sense. CO2 is a very effective GHG and it mixes well in the atmosphere. Water vapor does not mix too well and is short lived. CO2 on the other hand can stay several hundred years in the atmosphere. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) So, your rebuttal again is a mindless argumentum ad hominem fallacy, and circular logic fallacy: we caused the increase because of the increase. Am I supposed to respect that pile of fallacies as an argument? There is no way I'd fall for it. Why don't you google for it? Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. Your inability to make a rational reply is noted. Your AGW denier fantasies are COMPLETELY unscientific, no government in the world listens to your nonsense. Q -- The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote: On May 8, 3:44 pm, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other things. CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is significant in causing global warming. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that time. The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now, it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning. Proof by allegation. No one can argue with that. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote: On May 8, 3:44 pm, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of global warming. There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not even be a significant part of it. The "lag" mentioned above indicates that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other things. CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) So we contributed. What percentage of the total? There are many natural sources of CO2. And you still haven't shown that CO2 is significant in causing global warming. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that time. The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now, it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning. Q No scientist says anything so silly, economics and oil shortages will cause the development of technology to use less fossil fuel and there is a chance the CO2 concentrations will never go above 400 PPMV. AGW nuts voicing alarmism can only destroy any possible wide acceptance of the need to develop alternate energy for the right reasons. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened before. Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have happened before. Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as irrational as well as junk science. To elaborate, the ice core data proves that: 1) There have been past warming and cooling periods. 2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming cycle. Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't say their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non- warming doesn't explain past warming either. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1; http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm Appeal to authority fallacy is noted. In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know. What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got it wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of man made "greenhouse gasses". Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the atmosphere. See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website: http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg 5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%. Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle. Obvious fallacy. Human CO2 emissions result from the addition of carbon which was previously interred in the ground and not previously a part of the carbon cycle. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your argument very hard to support. If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it. You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a disaster for humans. The issue, as you stated it, was "is it bad if the earth warms". The issue is not related to the medieval warm period, a regional phenomena and not a global one. I'm not going to chase around showing you all the indications and predictions of harm since you've provided nothing other than a couple of totally unsupported assertions. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We put the CO2 there. 2) The CO2 caused the warming. No one has shown either one of these. We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the atmosphere. Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into natural carbon sinks. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of CO2 that followed. And yes, CO2 absorbs IR. So does water, and water absorbs in two of the same IR bands as CO2. Water vapor, not CO2, is the greenhouse gas. The effect of CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welding goggles. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that time. The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now, it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning. The British were able to grow wine grapes. It was warmer during the medieval warm period than it is now. The challenge is to show how increased food production and decreased disease due to the swamps drying up was bad. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:38:50 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:44:02 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. Yes. At best, 0.07 degrees C, down in the noise level. See, for example, Khilyuk and Chilingar, "Are we confusing cause and effect?" 2003. A lie, since 1880 we got about +1C. K&C calculated the amount of warming due to man made CO2. You are including all the warming and assuming that it is due to human activity, and then using this misunderstanding as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem. The problem is that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it absorbs in 3 IR bands, and H2O absorbs in two of those bands. The additional "greenhouse" effect of the CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welder's goggles. Non-sense. CO2 is a very effective GHG and it mixes well in the atmosphere. Water vapor does not mix too well and is short lived. CO2 on the other hand can stay several hundred years in the atmosphere. There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere, being measured in 100s of parts per million. Water vapor, on the other hand, is measured as percent, parts per hundred. The studies on how long CO2 stay in the atmosphere are based on isotope ratios: they show that the carbon in CO2 is from sequestered carbon. Thefalse presumption is that the only source of sequestered carbon is fossil fuels, and it ignores the obvious fact that sequestered carbon is re-entering the system from carbonate rocks in the oceans. Dissolving corals are pointed out as a problem, but the fact that all carbonate rock sources are dissolving and adding sequestered carbon is ignored. Physics wise, water vapor is the major greenhouse gas and CO2 is trivial. This is why all the AGW advocates claim CO2 is a "leverage gas", which implies positive feedback, which means that our current climate is a point of unstable equilibrium, which can't be since any perturbation would have moved us to a stable equilibrium point. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:26:30 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened before. Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have happened before. Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as irrational as well as junk science. To elaborate, the ice core data proves that: 1) There have been past warming and cooling periods. 2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming cycle. Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't say their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non- warming doesn't explain past warming either. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1; http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm Appeal to authority fallacy is noted. In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Go he http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg Add up all the sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. 60 for soils, 60 for forest, 90 for the oceans, 5.5 for humans. So, we add 5.5 Gtns out of a total of 210 Gtns going into the Atmosphere. About 2.5%. A small amount. The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in the oceans is small. That ratio is, by the diagram, 750 Gtns/39000 Gigatons = 2%. So, the human contribution is 2% of 2.5% = 0.05%, a trivial amount. By simple undergrad chemistry, the only way the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to the CO2 in the oceans could change is by a change in temperature. A warmer temperature puts more CO2 into the air. Thus, we are not putting the CO2 into the air. A warmed ocean put it there. CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause. The concentration has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Also, CO2 increased after each warming period dating back a hundred thousand years. Your statement is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy. and we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know. The simple magnitude of the CO2 produced by humans doesn't mean we put the CO2 into the atmosphere. AS I have shown, most of our CO2 enters the ocean. What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got it wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of man made "greenhouse gasses". Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the atmosphere. See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website: http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg 5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%. Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle. Obvious fallacy. Human CO2 emissions result from the addition of carbon which was previously interred in the ground and not previously a part of the carbon cycle. Yes. As the ocean warmed, More CO2 enters the oceans due to the equilibrium being shifted to increase the amount of CO2 out of solid rock and corals. As the oceans warmed, the ratio between the atmosphere CO2 to ocean CO2 changes. Temperature change is the only way this ratio can change. Simple chemistry. WE didn't put the CO2 there, it came from sequestered carbon, but to think that the only source of sequestered carbon is fossil fuels is a mistake, and the idea that fossil carbon can magically stay in the atmosphere when all other carbon enters the ocean is voodoo physics. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your argument very hard to support. If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it. You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a disaster for humans. The issue, as you stated it, was "is it bad if the earth warms". The issue is not related to the medieval warm period, a regional phenomena and not a global one. I'm not going to chase around showing you all the indications and predictions of harm since you've provided nothing other than a couple of totally unsupported assertions. Given that the northern hemisphere is doing most of the warming, the recent GW (which stopped in 1998) is also a "regional phenomena". If this warming was caused by CO2, the southern hemisphere should have warmed just as much; another reason to reject the non-hypothesis of the AGW advocates. I note that your argument for disregarding the medieval warming period is that it is not shown that it is world wide. The "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. Sadly, your fallacy is even flawed; for the medieval warming period shows that the warmer climate, local or not, was a climate of prosperity, thus supporting my argument that warmer is good for humanity in Europe. This lopsided warming is explained by Svensmark's climate theory, which shows that global cooling is caused by cosmic rays. Unlike the debunked CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory, he's shown how cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere cause cloud formations in the lab at CERN, using high energy particles from the accelerator there to make clouds. Svensmark's theory also explains the warming on Mars and Jupiter. It explains the strong correlation between solar cycle and climate, which is much stronger than the correlation between CO2 and climate that the AGW advocates depend on. And finally, Svensmark's theory is consistent with the last 4.5 billion years of climate data, while the AGW hypothesis failed to predict the last decade. WE didn't cause the CO2. The CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause. Warming isn't bad. Climate change is caused by things external to the earth and has nothing to do with human activity. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On May 9, 7:35*pm, qqq_qqq wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote: On May 8, 3:44 pm, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message m... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message om... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.. What, specifically, would constitute proof? *A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by *an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, *but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, *constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. * You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. The fact that CO2 is a GH gas does not mean that it is *the* cause of global warming. *There are many things that contribute and CO2 may not even be a significant part of it. *The "lag" mentioned above indicates that the rise in CO2 could be an effect due to warming caused by other things. CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. LOL, you can't even write a paragraph without contradicting yourself. Inertia means there is a lag in the response. So here you have said ther is no lag, but we're going to get clobbered in the future for what we are doing now. Even if our CO2 is rapidly mixed in what is to say that there hasn't also been a natural increase in CO2 like the ones that have followed warming trends in the past? We have plenty of evidence that those increases took place in the past so I would say the burden of proof is on you to show that it is not part of the increase we are seeing now. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. You don't understand the physics, WE (our cars etc) caused the extra CO2 (=390 - 280 ppmv) So we contributed. *What percentage of the total? *There are many natural sources of CO2. *And you still haven't shown that CO2 is significant in causing global warming. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. The same science says that the increase in CO2 is not nearly enough to account for the change in temp that we have seen all by itself. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity" did you not understand? *There is good and bad with every change. *Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that time. The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now, *it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning. Can't give up your alarmist ways can you. You have no way of knowing that the temp will rise that much, and you still haven't shown how it would be bad for the world in the long run. Q -- The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know. One aspect of the supposed anthropogenic climate change is rising sea level. If you open Google Earth and type in "Smallhythe" in the "Fly To" box and go there, then type in "Time Team", you'll see D - Henry V's naval dockyard, TEN MILES inland today. The 1000 ton "Jesus" was built there. http://tinyurl.com/oo49t6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Oxney "In the 13th century, the island was part of the coastline bordering what is now the Romney Marsh. As that silted up, and until the later 17th century, the River Rother which enters the sea beyond Rye and flowed across Kent in a west-east direction, was in a channel to the north of the island. By the late 18th century, the river had changed its course to the south. Today the former sea and river channels are low-lying land, leaving the erstwhile island as high ground, but still retaining its name." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Thanet "Julius Caesar came first, briefly, in both 55 and 54 BCE; one hundred years later Claudius sent four legions to Britain, where the Romans were to remain for the next four hundred years. During that time the port of Richborough, on the opposite side of the Wantsum Channel (see Geography below), became one of the chief ports. " In the eighth century it was reported that the Channel was now three furlongs wide (660 yards, 600 m), and a map of 1414 showed a ferry crossing at Sarre. The first bridge over the channel was built there in 1485. Until the mid 18th century there was a ferry between Sandwich and the island; a wooden drawbridge was built, and the ferry was closed." "Today the Isle is an island no longer. The erstwhile Channel is now flat marshland criss-crossed by drainage ditches, whilst the exposed chalk cliffs are gradually being worn down by the sea, particularly at the North Foreland. Much else of the coast is a built-up area. The Wantsum area is still liable to flooding: during the North Sea flood of 1953 Thanet was cut off for a few days, but the sea defences have been strengthened since then." Sea level has FALLEN 2 metres in the last 600 years. What was the anthropogenesis that caused this catastrophic drop in sea level, removing teratons of sea water from arable land? |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:38:50 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:44:02 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. You don't understand the physics, CO2 does does global warming. Yes. At best, 0.07 degrees C, down in the noise level. See, for example, Khilyuk and Chilingar, "Are we confusing cause and effect?" 2003. A lie, since 1880 we got about +1C. K&C calculated the amount of warming due to man made CO2. You are including all the warming and assuming that it is due to human activity, and then using this misunderstanding as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem. This graph should be well known I guess, it shows clearly warming: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif There is simply too much evidence from independent sources, K&C are wrong. The problem is that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it absorbs in 3 IR bands, and H2O absorbs in two of those bands. The additional "greenhouse" effect of the CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welder's goggles. Non-sense. CO2 is a very effective GHG and it mixes well in the atmosphere. Water vapor does not mix too well and is short lived. CO2 on the other hand can stay several hundred years in the atmosphere. There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere, being measured in 100s of parts per million. Water vapor, on the other hand, is measured as percent, parts per hundred. The real answer is that CO2 always absorbs in the stratosphere where there is no water vapor. Water vapor itself leads to cloud formation, and this has a negative feedback. The studies on how long CO2 stay in the atmosphere are based on isotope ratios: they show that the carbon in CO2 is from sequestered carbon. Thefalse presumption is that the only source of sequestered carbon is fossil fuels, and it ignores the obvious fact that sequestered carbon is re-entering the system from carbonate rocks in the oceans. Dissolving corals are pointed out as a problem, but the fact that all carbonate rock sources are dissolving and adding sequestered carbon is ignored. The carbon mapping satellites show something else. Physics wise, water vapor is the major greenhouse gas and CO2 is trivial. You missed the point about clouds. This is why all the AGW advocates claim CO2 is a "leverage gas", which implies positive feedback, which means that our current climate is a point of unstable equilibrium, which can't be since any perturbation would have moved us to a stable equilibrium point. I consider this to be yet another misinterpretation of the physics. Why don't you check http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm Maybe also educate yourself about the Clausius Clapeyron relation. Q |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:26:30 -0500, Bill Carter
wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened before. Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have happened before. Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as irrational as well as junk science. To elaborate, the ice core data proves that: 1) There have been past warming and cooling periods. 2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming cycle. Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't say their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non- warming doesn't explain past warming either. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1; http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm Appeal to authority fallacy is noted. In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know. What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got it wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of man made "greenhouse gasses". Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the atmosphere. See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website: http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg 5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%. Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle. Obvious fallacy. Human CO2 emissions result from the addition of carbon which was previously interred in the ground and not previously a part of the carbon cycle. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your argument very hard to support. If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it. You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a disaster for humans. The issue, as you stated it, was "is it bad if the earth warms". The issue is not related to the medieval warm period, a regional phenomena and not a global one. I'm not going to chase around showing you all the indications and predictions of harm since you've provided nothing other than a couple of totally unsupported assertions. Don't bother showing all the "predictions" of harm, the doomsday nuts do that all the time. But please show some indication that there has been harm, and how you are sure it is caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We put the CO2 there. 2) The CO2 caused the warming. No one has shown either one of these. You will have to abandon using #1. We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the atmosphere. Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally? There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and vents, but can it be documented? Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into natural carbon sinks. Nonsense, There should be no attempt to claim that nature would increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local changes seen mostly in the Arctic. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of CO2 that followed. But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it. And yes, CO2 absorbs IR. So does water, and water absorbs in two of the same IR bands as CO2. Water vapor, not CO2, is the greenhouse gas. And water absorbs CO2, moreso in the atmosphere because the water in the atmosphere is comes in contact with more of the other gas molecules than the ocean does. The effect of CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welding goggles. It helps cool the atmosphere, just like water vapor, but not as much, and not in as many ways. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. You don't understand the physics, a warmer Earth is a different planet and we will have to pay to price. What part of "the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity" did you not understand? There is good and bad with every change. Looks like a little warmer worked out for the better that time. The medieval warm period was nothing compared to what we are facing now, it will be nearly impossible to confine GW below 3C, more likely we get to see 6C thanks to 150 years of fossil fuel burning. The British were able to grow wine grapes. It was warmer during the medieval warm period than it is now. The challenge is to show how increased food production and decreased disease due to the swamps drying up was bad. The AGW nuts all think everything is bad, losers always feel that way, it seems nothing ever goes right. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 10:25:31 +0200, Q wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: K&C calculated the amount of warming due to man made CO2. You are including all the warming and assuming that it is due to human activity, and then using this misunderstanding as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem. This graph should be well known I guess, it shows clearly warming: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif There is simply too much evidence from independent sources, K&C are wrong. Any graph related to Hanson is suspect, as he is a nutjob who thinks that anyone who disputes him should be thrown in prison. His lies about a warmer post 1998 year was debunked. But even this graph, which is bogus, shows cooling post 1998. And your "rebuttal" again contains the implicit assumption that if there is any warming, it must be man made, when K&C's analysis showed how much of the warming could be due to the increase in CO2. There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere, being measured in 100s of parts per million. Water vapor, on the other hand, is measured as percent, parts per hundred. The real answer is that CO2 always absorbs in the stratosphere where there is no water vapor. The idea that CO2's chemical properties are a function of altitude is laughable. CO2's chemical properties do not depend on altitude. Water vapor itself leads to cloud formation, and this has a negative feedback. Clouds form when the air becomes saturated, which is not always the case. Your rebuttal is qualitative and nonsensical. The studies on how long CO2 stay in the atmosphere are based on isotope ratios: they show that the carbon in CO2 is from sequestered carbon. Thefalse presumption is that the only source of sequestered carbon is fossil fuels, and it ignores the obvious fact that sequestered carbon is re-entering the system from carbonate rocks in the oceans. Dissolving corals are pointed out as a problem, but the fact that all carbonate rock sources are dissolving and adding sequestered carbon is ignored. The carbon mapping satellites show something else. But you can't say what. snip more gibberish one liners |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:23:45 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We put the CO2 there. 2) The CO2 caused the warming. No one has shown either one of these. You will have to abandon using #1. No I don't. We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the atmosphere. Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally? There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and vents, but can it be documented? I've explained that a warmer ocean shifts the equilibrium between solid carbonates and CO2 in the ocean to favor the oceans. This explains the source of the sequestered CO2. Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into natural carbon sinks. Nonsense, There should be no attempt to claim that nature would increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local changes seen mostly in the Arctic. Interesting irrational statement. You are intentionally making an error defining the carbon system when you rule out ocean carbonate rocks. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of CO2 that followed. But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it. Let me get this straight: you're good with saying that CO2 CAUSED the warming when the CO2 increase comes AFTER the warming, but when the CO2 lags the warming, you claim that it cannot be said that warming caused the CO2? Aburd! Correlation indicates: 1) Random chance that the two events correlated. 2) A causes B. (requires B happens after A) 3) B causes A. (requires A happens after B) 4) C causes A and B (requires C happens before A and B) Case 1 is highly improbable. Case two, CO2 causes warming, is ruled out by the causality principle. That means either warming causes CO2, or something else cause the warming and the CO2. And yes, CO2 absorbs IR. So does water, and water absorbs in two of the same IR bands as CO2. Water vapor, not CO2, is the greenhouse gas. And water absorbs CO2, moreso in the atmosphere because the water in the atmosphere is comes in contact with more of the other gas molecules than the ocean does. The whole reason why the AGW crowd resorted to the absurd positive feedback "leverage gas" approach is because they physics plainly shows that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause the warming. The effect of CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welding goggles. It helps cool the atmosphere, just like water vapor, but not as much, and not in as many ways. Without water vapor, this planet would be a frozen rock, like Mars. Mars has much more CO2 than earth, but no water vapor. According to your claim, Mars should be warm and Earth should be a frozen rock. This is not the case, so your statement is rejected. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On May 10, 12:44*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Without water vapor, this planet would be a frozen rock, like Mars. Mars has much more CO2 than earth, but no water vapor. According to your claim, Mars should be warm and Earth should be a frozen rock. This is not the case, so your statement is rejected. Speaking of Mars, you realize there is a GW effect there, caused by the sun's rays being amplified by Martian atmosphere. And Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2. So we should have a hotter Martian atmosphere than expected. RL |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:44:59 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:23:45 -0500, What A. Fool wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We put the CO2 there. 2) The CO2 caused the warming. No one has shown either one of these. You will have to abandon using #1. No I don't. There has been no warming except the Arctic. We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the atmosphere. Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally? There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and vents, but can it be documented? I've explained that a warmer ocean shifts the equilibrium between solid carbonates and CO2 in the ocean to favor the oceans. This explains the source of the sequestered CO2. The ocean hasn't warmed, it certainly hasn't warmed enough to release CO2. Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into natural carbon sinks. Nonsense, There should be no attempt to claim that nature would increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local changes seen mostly in the Arctic. Interesting irrational statement. You are intentionally making an error defining the carbon system when you rule out ocean carbonate rocks. Rain constantly absorbs CO2 and carries it to the surface where it either enters the water or is absorbed by rock. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of CO2 that followed. But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it. Let me get this straight: you're good with saying that CO2 CAUSED the warming when the CO2 increase comes AFTER the warming, but when the CO2 lags the warming, you claim that it cannot be said that warming caused the CO2? Aburd! There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago. Correlation indicates: 1) Random chance that the two events correlated. 2) A causes B. (requires B happens after A) 3) B causes A. (requires A happens after B) 4) C causes A and B (requires C happens before A and B) Case 1 is highly improbable. Case two, CO2 causes warming, is ruled out by the causality principle. That means either warming causes CO2, or something else cause the warming and the CO2. There has been no warming above what the temperature was 8000 years ago, so the statements about the present being the warmest ever are false (except for the time after the Earth was formed and magma was all over the surface. And yes, CO2 absorbs IR. So does water, and water absorbs in two of the same IR bands as CO2. Water vapor, not CO2, is the greenhouse gas. And water absorbs CO2, moreso in the atmosphere because the water in the atmosphere is comes in contact with more of the other gas molecules than the ocean does. The whole reason why the AGW crowd resorted to the absurd positive feedback "leverage gas" approach is because they physics plainly shows that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause the warming. They can't show that any GHG causes the atmosphere to warm. The effect of CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welding goggles. It helps cool the atmosphere, just like water vapor, but not as much, and not in as many ways. Without water vapor, this planet would be a frozen rock, like Mars. Mars has much more CO2 than earth, but no water vapor. According to your claim, Mars should be warm and Earth should be a frozen rock. This is not the case, so your statement is rejected. Water cools the surface, and moderates the temperature, any idea that water warms anything is a delusion. GHGs cool the atmosphere and water is by far the main GHG. You buy that junk science? Without water and water vapor, the atmosphere would be very warm. Read the myth again and try to separate the surface from the atmosphere and the whole Earth. Too many people read the literature and get the wrong idea. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know. One aspect of the supposed anthropogenic climate change is rising sea level. If you open Google Earth and type in "Smallhythe" ie the "Fly To" box and go there, then type in "Time Team", you'll see D - Henry V's naval dockyard, TEN MILES inland today. I'm sure that's really interesting but completely unrelated to what I was saying. I noticed that you modified the follow-ups. Coward! Sea level is in fact rising in this era, you can talk to climate historians all you want as to what happened in the time of Julius Caesar and why. And the reason its rising now is due to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of land ice, both due to warming. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
"Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know. One aspect of the supposed anthropogenic climate change is rising sea level. If you open Google Earth and type in "Smallhythe" ie the "Fly To" box and go there, then type in "Time Team", you'll see D - Henry V's naval dockyard, TEN MILES inland today. I'm sure that's really interesting but completely unrelated to what I was saying. I noticed that you modified the follow-ups. Coward! Sea level is in fact rising in this era BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein. (Notice that I've set the follow-ups to the appropriate newsgroups, ****!) |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:26:30 -0500, Bill Carter wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Bill Carter" wrote in message ... Marvin the Martian wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets the gratuitous insult. This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay! Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that. What, specifically, would constitute proof? A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming? Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible, but if there were, then a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more questions? They have to show: 1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon interaction would have to be involved. Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened before. Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have happened before. Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as irrational as well as junk science. To elaborate, the ice core data proves that: 1) There have been past warming and cooling periods. 2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming cycle. Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't say their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non- warming doesn't explain past warming either. 2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1; http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm Appeal to authority fallacy is noted. In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very little CO2 to the atmosphere. Go he http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg Add up all the sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. 60 for soils, 60 for forest, 90 for the oceans, 5.5 for humans. So, we add 5.5 Gtns out of a total of 210 Gtns going into the Atmosphere. About 2.5%. A small amount. So you think your source is more authoritative than mine, I guess fallacies are only for other people. That little graphic isn't designed for numeric accuracy, it is an uncited illustration from some guy's textbook. See here for a more comprehensive list of CO2 sources and amounts, and this one cites where they get their info; http://tinyurl.com/63sos6 "Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007" "Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year." The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in the oceans is small. That ratio is, by the diagram, 750 Gtns/39000 Gigatons = 2%. So, the human contribution is 2% of 2.5% = 0.05%, a trivial amount. By simple undergrad chemistry, the only way the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to the CO2 in the oceans could change is by a change in temperature. A warmer temperature puts more CO2 into the air. I'm sorry your undergrad chemistry doesn't match with observations. We aren't talking about a beaker on a burner. The planetary atmosphere and the oceans are a complex interrelated system that people spend their lives trying to understand. Thus, we are not putting the CO2 into the air. A warmed ocean put it there. CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause. The oceans act as a net CO2 sink (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/305/5682/367) and are becoming more acidic as a result of increased atmospheric concentration. CO2 from fossil fuels can be identified via radioisotope signature and there is no rational denying that we are adding it to the atmosphere in very substantial quantities. The concentration has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Also, CO2 increased after each warming period dating back a hundred thousand years. Your statement is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy. I'm stating a verified fact. CO2 increases in previous eras may or may not have lagged warming, there is controversy, but we do know it has increased recently without doubt. and we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know. The simple magnitude of the CO2 produced by humans doesn't mean we put the CO2 into the atmosphere. AS I have shown, most of our CO2 enters the ocean. No, you haven't shown it. You've claimed that the oceans emit CO2 and that's where the excess comes from. Mysteriously, they also absorb all we emit. What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got it wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of man made "greenhouse gasses". Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the atmosphere. See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website: http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg 5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%. Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle. Obvious fallacy. Human CO2 emissions result from the addition of carbon which was previously interred in the ground and not previously a part of the carbon cycle. Yes. As the ocean warmed, More CO2 enters the oceans due to the equilibrium being shifted to increase the amount of CO2 out of solid rock and corals. Right, you claim the oceans have warmed due to cosmic rays and humans emit only 5.5 gigatons/year. As the oceans warmed, the ratio between the atmosphere CO2 to ocean CO2 changes. Temperature change is the only way this ratio can change. Simple chemistry. WE didn't put the CO2 there, it came from sequestered carbon, but to think that the only source of sequestered carbon is fossil fuels is a mistake, and the idea that fossil carbon can magically stay in the atmosphere when all other carbon enters the ocean is voodoo physics. Nobody is saying that there is only one source of sequestered carbon, and nobody but denial kooks make a strawman claiming that all fossil carbon stays in the atmosphere. Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too, would be hard to prove. A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your argument very hard to support. If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it. You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a disaster for humans. The issue, as you stated it, was "is it bad if the earth warms". The issue is not related to the medieval warm period, a regional phenomena and not a global one. I'm not going to chase around showing you all the indications and predictions of harm since you've provided nothing other than a couple of totally unsupported assertions. Given that the northern hemisphere is doing most of the warming, the recent GW (which stopped in 1998) is also a "regional phenomena". If this warming was caused by CO2, the southern hemisphere should have warmed just as much; another reason to reject the non-hypothesis of the AGW advocates. The goalpost moves with every comment I see. You're abandonment of your previous position is duly noted. First its not "our" CO2, then maybe its okay if its warming, and now its not really warming. I'll find no intellectual honesty with you it is clear. See these charts, warming is not evenly distributed everywhere on the globe but obviously there is warming and its measured in many ways; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ I note that your argument for disregarding the medieval warming period is that it is not shown that it is world wide. The "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. Sadly, your fallacy is even flawed; for the medieval warming period shows that the warmer climate, local or not, was a climate of prosperity, thus supporting my argument that warmer is good for humanity in Europe. Now it goes back to 'warming is good'. For Europe. At that point in time. This lopsided warming is explained by Svensmark's climate theory, which shows that global cooling is caused by cosmic rays. Unlike the debunked CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory, he's shown how cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere cause cloud formations in the lab at CERN, using high energy particles from the accelerator there to make clouds. I'll wait until he shows that it actually is cooling, and then he can do a better job of explaining why; http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/ |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:44:48 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:44:59 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:23:45 -0500, What A. Fool wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We put the CO2 there. 2) The CO2 caused the warming. No one has shown either one of these. You will have to abandon using #1. No I don't. There has been no warming except the Arctic. "No warming except... " So, there's warming. I don't dispute that in the 1990s, up until 1998, there was an increase in the average earth temperature. It sounds like you don't either, with your no warming except for the warmer parts bit. We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the atmosphere. Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally? There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and vents, but can it be documented? I've explained that a warmer ocean shifts the equilibrium between solid carbonates and CO2 in the ocean to favor the oceans. This explains the source of the sequestered CO2. The ocean hasn't warmed, it certainly hasn't warmed enough to release CO2. All you have to do is google scholar on "ocean warming" and you get dozens of articles on ocean warming. Basically, as deep as the light goes, there has been warming. How small does the warming have to be so that you don't release CO2? The equilibrium is a continuous function. There is no 'hasn't warmed enough to release CO2" limit. Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into natural carbon sinks. Nonsense, There should be no attempt to claim that nature would increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local changes seen mostly in the Arctic. Interesting irrational statement. You are intentionally making an error defining the carbon system when you rule out ocean carbonate rocks. Rain constantly absorbs CO2 and carries it to the surface where it either enters the water or is absorbed by rock. Which doesn't prove that "all increases are from burning fossil fuel" and is so unrelated to that claim that it is a non-sequitor. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of CO2 that followed. But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it. Let me get this straight: you're good with saying that CO2 CAUSED the warming when the CO2 increase comes AFTER the warming, but when the CO2 lags the warming, you claim that it cannot be said that warming caused the CO2? Aburd! There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago. See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ 1) Warming and CO2 are correlated. 2) The data goes back 400,000 years, so it's pre human. 3) CO2 lags the warming, so CO2 cannot cause the warming. snip ignorant claims, illogic, and some argumentum ad hominem. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:15:24 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: Go he http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg Add up all the sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. 60 for soils, 60 for forest, 90 for the oceans, 5.5 for humans. So, we add 5.5 Gtns out of a total of 210 Gtns going into the Atmosphere. About 2.5%. A small amount. So you think your source is more authoritative than mine, Authoritative? I took the numbers from the AGW advocates. Given their numbers, the amount of CO2 we add is trivial. If you think this is about authorities, simply get the guy who is telling you what to think to post here and go away. I guess fallacies are only for other people. That little graphic isn't designed for numeric accuracy, it is an uncited illustration from some guy's textbook. See here for a more comprehensive list of CO2 sources and amounts, and this one cites where they get their info; http://tinyurl.com/63sos6 "Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007" "Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year." The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in the oceans is small. That ratio is, by the diagram, 750 Gtns/39000 Gigatons = 2%. So, the human contribution is 2% of 2.5% = 0.05%, a trivial amount. By simple undergrad chemistry, the only way the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to the CO2 in the oceans could change is by a change in temperature. A warmer temperature puts more CO2 into the air. I'm sorry your undergrad chemistry doesn't match with observations. We aren't talking about a beaker on a burner. The planetary atmosphere and the oceans are a complex interrelated system that people spend their lives trying to understand. Interesting way of injecting your voodoo junk science and rejecting well known chemistry principles. You are a non-scientific crank. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:44:48 -0500, What A. Fool wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:44:59 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:23:45 -0500, What A. Fool wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote: CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which is going to hit us in the future. This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We put the CO2 there. 2) The CO2 caused the warming. No one has shown either one of these. You will have to abandon using #1. No I don't. There has been no warming except the Arctic. "No warming except... " So, there's warming. I don't dispute that in the 1990s, up until 1998, there was an increase in the average earth temperature. It sounds like you don't either, with your no warming except for the warmer parts bit. We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the atmosphere. Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally? There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and vents, but can it be documented? I've explained that a warmer ocean shifts the equilibrium between solid carbonates and CO2 in the ocean to favor the oceans. This explains the source of the sequestered CO2. The ocean hasn't warmed, it certainly hasn't warmed enough to release CO2. All you have to do is google scholar on "ocean warming" and you get dozens of articles on ocean warming. Basically, as deep as the light goes, there has been warming. How small does the warming have to be so that you don't release CO2? The equilibrium is a continuous function. There is no 'hasn't warmed enough to release CO2" limit. Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into natural carbon sinks. Nonsense, There should be no attempt to claim that nature would increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local changes seen mostly in the Arctic. Interesting irrational statement. You are intentionally making an error defining the carbon system when you rule out ocean carbonate rocks. Rain constantly absorbs CO2 and carries it to the surface where it either enters the water or is absorbed by rock. Which doesn't prove that "all increases are from burning fossil fuel" and is so unrelated to that claim that it is a non-sequitor. Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific rumble you should directly ignore. This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of CO2 that followed. But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it. Let me get this straight: you're good with saying that CO2 CAUSED the warming when the CO2 increase comes AFTER the warming, but when the CO2 lags the warming, you claim that it cannot be said that warming caused the CO2? Aburd! There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago. See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ 1) Warming and CO2 are correlated. 2) The data goes back 400,000 years, so it's pre human. 3) CO2 lags the warming, so CO2 cannot cause the warming. This argument is known as lie #12 see also http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm and in partical read: what does it mean, Q snip ignorant claims, illogic, and some argumentum ad hominem. |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Tue, 12 May 2009 01:44:41 +0200, Q wrote:
See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ 1) Warming and CO2 are correlated. 2) The data goes back 400,000 years, so it's pre human. 3) CO2 lags the warming, so CO2 cannot cause the warming. This argument is known as lie #12 Childish ad hominem nervously being substituted for a rational argument noted. see also http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm and in partical read: what does it mean, "As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007)." So, they admit that it lags, and then they make the leverage gas argument. Sadly, this isn't even a hypothesis, as every "computer model" that tried to use it failed to predict the lack of cooling in the last decade. Yet, we have Svensmark's theory, which doesn't need Co2 at all, and it not only predicts the last 10 years, but the 4.5 billion years before that. The AGW frauds continue to insist that their claims, which don't fit the last 10 years, is valid and that the theory who's physical principles were confirmed by CERN and predicts the last 4.5 billion years is wrong. -- http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization |
Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
On Mon, 11 May 2009 20:34:38 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 18:34:52 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:44:48 -0500, What A. Fool wrote: [snip] There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago. See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ 1) Warming and CO2 are correlated. Nonsense, snip I give you the data showing a pretty good correlation, and you deny it as nonsense. :-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk