Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Can anyone answer this?

  1. #1 Can anyone answer this? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2
    http://imageshack.us/m/155/6668/graphdm.jpg

    Both carbon dioxide (CO2) and water-vapor (H2O) represent greenhouse gases. Recall that while the society is concerned about CO2 emissions, no-one worries about the amount of water-vapor released after cooking a meal. Looking at the graph given below, provide two reasons for why emissions of CO2 represent a higher concern for global climate change.
    [/img]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    Green house gases consist of more than 90% naturally occurring water vapor. Green house gases allow our planet to be habitable. It was only when some people started making money selling green ideas that green house gases became evil. So, to answer your question, I don't think there is a study out there that says CO2 is contributing to any kind of global climate change that isn't sponsored by a government or corporation that is making money off of it.


    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2
    But there is nothing that says it doesnt cause a climate change. what if it does?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    First of all, whoisjohngalt is full of shit, and he's really quite wrong above. Second of all, carbon dioxide is known as a climate forcing agent, wherein water is a climate feedback agent. Third, the build up of water vapor tends to end in a neat phenomenon I like to call "rain," and only stays in the atmosphere on average for 7 to 10 days. However, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for centuries, and builds on that which came before.

    People look at water vapor when studying climate, so don't ever let someone lie to you and pretend they don't, but we're also not exactly digging long since sequestered stores of water from deep underground and releasing it. The water in the atmosphere has been in the system for a very long time... it's already part of a system which has adjusted to it and found a balance... There is an equilibrium with the water in the system.

    However, in addition to carbon remaining in the atmosphere for centuries after being burned (as opposed to only 7 to 10 days then raining down like water), we've been taking that carbon out of deep underground stores and reserves and reintroducing it to the air by burning it... it wasn't part of the atmospheric system before... it was sequestered... But, when we drill and dig it out and then burn it, it's back in the air again, and the air then needs to find equilibrium again... It becomes out of balance... as previously that carbon was locked away beneath the earth.

    Carbon doesn't turn into rain in 2 weeks like water. People who study climate science grasp this. People who study Fox news and think human induced climate change is a big conspiracy don't. Those people are ridiculous morons worthy of ridicule and dismissal.


    Now... Do you think your teacher will notice the fact that I just did your homework for you when you fail this question on their test in a few days?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I just want to reinforce what inow wrote above. Pay no attention to whoisjohngalt. His response is pure ideologically motivated willfully ignorant bullshit.

    Inow has said it right. I hope your teacher is impressed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    we've been taking that carbon out of deep underground stores and reserves and reintroducing it to the air by burning it... it wasn't part of the atmospheric system before... it was sequestered... But, when we drill and dig it out and then burn it, it's back in the air again, and the air then needs to find equilibrium again... It becomes out of balance... as previously that carbon was locked away beneath the earth.
    First of all, the obvious logical fallacy has to be brought to attention...which was it? If you admit we are putting it back in to the system, how can you say it 'wasn't part of the atmospheric system before'? It obviously was part of the atmospheric system before. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be here to put it back in. Just because it was sequestered by a mass extinction does not mean Earth was not meant to have it in the ecosystem. You are basing what is 'right' based on what you know from a few decades of experience, and possibly a few 10's of thousands of years of data from ice cores. Once you can comprehend the relative insignificance of a few 10's of thousands of years of data over a 5 billion year scale, you might come closer to understanding the propaganda that is "man-made global climate change" and how loose those foundations are based off of.

    Now for my more in depth response...

    My response had nothing to do with ideological measures. It has to do with established science, not make believe science sponsored by liberals.

    Man made carbon accounts for less than 1% of so-called green house gasses. You're telling me that in 200 years out of a history of 5 billion years, we have significantly altered the climate?

    I'm not sure why you have such a self inflated sence of importance to think that you could actually change the climate for the entire earth by driving to work in a vehicle.

    The earth has had cooling and warming periods leading to ice ages and that ice melting for billions of years. It will continue to happen. Yes, we will someday be in another ice age. Yes, someday that ice will melt and the Earth will be warmer. It wasn't dinosaurs driving SUV's that ended the last ice age and it won't be humans driving SUV's to end the next one. Heck, you don't need anything more than two feet to notice that the sun has more effect on temperature than anything else. Go outside at 2 p.m. and go outside at 2 a.m...Which one is warmer? Why? Or do you believe the Sun has produced the same amount of energy every day, forever? That would be an absurd conclusion. The sun has cycles...it effects temperature. That is established in fact.

    Human produced CO2 accounts for less than 1% of all green house gases. A single volcano eruption produces more climate changing factors than human kind has in all of history. That is also established in fact.

    Now, I will clarify one thing, humans have effected weather patterns. There is strong evidence that metropolises like Dallas Fort Worth significantly influence storm patterns in the vicinity. It is easily observable to notice a storm change path, form, or disperse based on it's proximity to the metroplex. But that is a long way from changing the entire global climate.

    I could list a lot of completely absurd claims that were made by the 'scientific community' regarding global climate change that anybody with a 9th grade education should be able to determine as false.

    Heck, here is an easy one...melting of the glaciers will cause sea level to rise...myth. Anybody familiar with displacement should easily understand that the melting of floating ice has 0 effect on sea level, and yet our 'scientists', I and I use the term very loosely, think it will contribute to a catastrophic rise in sea level. That those scientists are full of it is also established in fact.

    Yes, the melting of ice that is currently on land can contribute to a rise in sea level and WILL, indeed, someday submerge areas of the coast line...just as it has for billions of years. The Mojave desert used to be part of an ocean...get over it. Earth's climate is not stable, never has been. It will continue to change. I will concede that we may be accelerating some changes, but I believe it to be to an infinitesimal amount that we are completely incapable of measuring.

    Heck, you can't tell me if it is going to rain next Thursday, but you expect me to believe we have analyzed human gas emissions and can come up with a long term hypothesis on what will happen to the global climate? Give me a break.

    Take your pretend science based entirely on facts not in evidence and try to sell it to somebody who is less informed.

    You people really get my goat...you attack anybody who disagrees with you on a personal level but provide zero support other than studies funded by people who profit from those beliefs.

    So, which is it, is it global cooling or global warming? Don't think I haven't noticed how you guys basically gave up on trying to guess what happens and are now calling it 'global climate change'...That way, no matter what happens, you can claim to have been right.

    Well, duh. The climate is going to change globally...just as it has for the last 5 billion years, and it will continue to change even after your idiotic policies handcuff mankind's progression.

    Whatever, peak oil is here or will be in the near future. Man induced carbon emissions will drop significantly very soon.

    I just hope you know what you are in for. When you can't afford to drive to work, you will be screaming at the government for not having saved you from your own ridiculous, misguided ideals.
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Green house gases consist of more than 90% naturally occurring water vapor. Green house gases allow our planet to be habitable. It was only when some people started making money selling green ideas that green house gases became evil.
    Just wondering who was making money when the basic radiative theory was developed that suggested the possibility in the 18th and 19th centuries, and who was raking in the dough when President Johnson warned the nation of the danger at the behest of his science advisors fifty years ago.

    I'll just point at a couple myths of many in your post though.
    A single volcano eruption produces more climate changing factors than human kind has in all of history. That is also established in fact.
    Only super volcanoes which happen every 100,000 years or so produce "more climate changing factors." Volcanoes, on average, are puny compared to human emissions of Co2 and water vapor.

    Inow gave the most important reason why we don't worry too much about water vapor. It's short lived can be treated as a dependent variable of other long term radiative forcing. Changes in water vapor do produce noticeable regional effects though--the US plains, for example, haven't warmed as much as the rest of the of the planet most due to increased evaporation due to wide scale farming. Desertification is another good example.

    Whatever, peak oil is here or will be in the near future. Man induced carbon emissions will drop significantly very soon.
    Oil is only a small part of the problem. Coal, oil shale development, and methyl hydrates if we ever go that route are far more dangerous.

    Seriously climate science of global warming is so well established and supported by so many other natural sciences that it's inconceivable that it's basic tenants are wrong. Most of the work is now figuring out regional and local effects so they may be translated into local avoidance and mitigation strategies.

    The only flaw at this point is getting the message out against a well-oiled (hehe) disinformation campaign peddled to an scientifically ignorant American public.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Green house gases consist of more than 90% naturally occurring water vapor. Green house gases allow our planet to be habitable. It was only when some people started making money selling green ideas that green house gases became evil.
    Just wondering who was making money when the basic radiative theory was developed that suggested the possibility in the 18th and 19th centuries, and who was raking in the dough when President Johnson warned the nation of the danger at the behest of his science advisors fifty years ago.
    Those guys also didn't know what an atom was and we are talking about the same generation that burned witches at the stake.
    I'll just point at a couple myths of many in your post though.
    Not a chance...I will back up every point I made...I expect you to do the same...Don't tell me there are 'many' inaccuracies in my post without bothering to back it up.
    A single volcano eruption produces more climate changing factors than human kind has in all of history. That is also established in fact. Only super volcanoes which happen every 100,000 years or so produce "more climate changing factors." Volcanoes, on average, are puny compared to human emissions of Co2 and water vapor.
    By your numbers, which I don't agree with, but whatever, we will use them. Let's assume a super volcano erupts ever 100,000 years. That means there have been about 50,000 such eruptions since Earth was formed, not taking into account the fact that during Earth's infancy, there was much more volcanic activity. Based on that, there have been 50,000 events(not including asteroid's) that have equaled man's total contribution to global warming. Forgive me if I believe that is insignificant over a global scale.
    Inow gave the most important reason why we don't worry too much about water vapor. It's short lived can be treated as a dependent variable of other long term radiative forcing. Changes in water vapor do produce noticeable regional effects though--the US plains, for example, haven't warmed as much as the rest of the of the planet most due to increased evaporation due to wide scale farming. Desertification is another good example.
    No, Inow did not offer even a remotely decent answer as to why we don't take into account more than 90% of the contributor to what we call green house gases. Just because it is constantly recycling has nothing to do with it's overall impact on the Earth's climate.
    Whatever, peak oil is here or will be in the near future. Man induced carbon emissions will drop significantly very soon.
    Oil is only a small part of the problem. Coal, oil shale development, and methyl hydrates if we ever go that route are far more dangerous.

    Seriously climate science of global warming is so well established and supported by so many other natural sciences that it's inconceivable that it's basic tenants are wrong. Most of the work is now figuring out regional and local effects so they may be translated into local avoidance and mitigation strategies.

    The only flaw at this point is getting the message out against a well-oiled (hehe) disinformation campaign peddled to an scientifically ignorant American public.
    Obviously, I disagree. Heck, my degree is in Nuclear Engineering...I would much prefer people disavow oil, coal, natural gas, etc and come over to the dark side, but that has nothing to do with reality.

    Carbon contributes to less than 5% of green house gases, and man-made carbon contributes less than 1%. That is established in fact. Whether you think that 1% is driving the global climate is up for debate, but the facts are not.

    Carbon based emissions, carbon credits, etc is a money making business. The 'facts' that you think you know are based on research paid for by that money.

    It's no coincidence that most American's can't tell you that water vapor contributes to 90+% of Earth's green house gases. If you ask an average person to name a major green house gas, they will name CO2, without ever knowing how much of it is naturally occurring, how little it contributes overall, and how much of it is made by man.

    This is a conversation I am well versed in and do enjoy. There are a lot of easily attainable facts that a lot of so-called 'experts' choose to discount or ignore. It is also a debate that I will not back down from. Leave the personal attacks aside. There is no reason to say I am responding based on ideology or that I am full of $#!@. If you have data to refute one of my points, please present it.

    After all, we are all here to learn from our peers, right?
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman jsloan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    You are basing what is 'right' based on what you know from a few decades of experience, and possibly a few 10's of thousands of years of data from ice cores.
    Ice core data go back a lot farther than a few 10's of thousands of years. Some cores date back hundreds of thousands of years: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...velations.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    whoisjohngalt you don't seem well versus in the least about the subject and you've layed out so many inaccurate statements it's going to be pretty hard to tackle its entirety. Each of these separate issues is address in other forums multiple times. But I will address one point that I find rather odd.

    The evidence is clear that earth's climate changes on a regular basis over the past 4 billion years. You use this as somehow supportive of the idea that humans either can't also change the climate or should just accept their fate. That's an odd argument. Man's climb to modern society over the past 10,000 happened during a particularly mild and stable interglacial period in earth's climate history. Rapid changes to climate, regardless of the source, would make life more difficult for humans and many other species. We can't change the natural reasons for abrupt climate changes (e.g., volcanoes) and can only adapt to the more gradual natural types such as orbital changes. Non of the natural causes are reasons to dismiss man's effect on climate. Stoic arguments that suggest we shouldn't act because some natural changes can be larger are poor excuse for not taking action--they are the equivalent of allowing murder, or unlimited speeds on highways, because the victims will eventually die of natural causes anyhow.

    We can limit doing things that will cause a man-made abrupt climate change and make it harder on future generations. Most people think we have a moral responsibility to do so.

    --
    Carbon based emissions, carbon credits, etc is a money making business. The 'facts' that you think you know are based on research paid for by that money.
    Incorrect. First off the science was pretty much settled well before those were even ideas. Furthermore, most of the research, by a large margin, on climate and other related supporting research comes out of government labs and agencies filled by conservative scientist.

    I can fully understand why you'd not like cap-and-trade. Heck I don't care for it either. But don't confuse or denigrate the science because of it--it's only shooting the messenger. What politicians do with the information is completely different.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Sigh... A lie can be told in a few words. Debunking that lie can take pages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    By your numbers, which I don't agree with, but whatever, we will use them. Let's assume a super volcano erupts ever 100,000 years. That means there have been about 50,000 such eruptions since Earth was formed, not taking into account the fact that during Earth's infancy, there was much more volcanic activity. Based on that, there have been 50,000 events(not including asteroid's) that have equaled man's total contribution to global warming. Forgive me if I believe that is insignificant over a global scale.
    Mount Toba (a supervolcano) erupted roughly 74,000 years ago. Where axactly is the carbon dioxide anomaly of 150-200ppm (roughly equivelant to the total carbon output of modern human activity)?



    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    No, Inow did not offer even a remotely decent answer as to why we don't take into account more than 90% of the contributor to what we call green house gases. Just because it is constantly recycling has nothing to do with it's overall impact on the Earth's climate.
    Water (vapour) forms a self-regulating system. When water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere reach a certain level, clouds begin to form, increasing the earth's albido and cooling the atmosphere down again. Increasing the water vapour concentration of the atmosphere, therefore, will only produce a warming effect untill clouds being to form - typically within 2 weeks. At this point, the excess water vapour is removed from the atmosphere as precipitation, removing the greenhouse gas.

    By contrast, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere only very slowly by photosynthetic organisms and weathering of sillicate rocks, and a few other slow processes. If the input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is greater than the rate at which it is removed by these processes, therefore, the temperature will continue to increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Carbon contributes to less than 5% of green house gases, and man-made carbon contributes less than 1%. That is established in fact. Whether you think that 1% is driving the global climate is up for debate, but the facts are not.
    By volume, or by relative effect as greenhouse gases over the half-life of these gases in the atmosphere? Citation?

    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    It's no coincidence that most American's can't tell you that water vapor contributes to 90+% of Earth's green house gases.
    Again, I bet this is by volume. Water vapour in the atmosphere has a very short half-life, and so has very little warming effect, despite the large volume that goes into and out of the atmosphere. Water vapour also leads to cloud formation, a major climate-cooling effect.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    Here is one of my favorite and what I believe to be one of the most accurate links on this subject. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    If there is information presented on that site that is inaccurate, please let me know. As it is, I have checked the sources, believe the information and conclusions to be accurate.
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Here is one of my favorite and what I believe to be one of the most accurate links on this subject.
    Good for you. Here's one of mine:
    http://skepticalscience.com/


    And, specific to your replies, here:
    http://skepticalscience.com/water-va...nhouse-gas.htm


    And, if the above was too basic for his highness, here's a more advanced reply:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...termediate.htm




    http://www.grist.org/article/water-v...enhouse-effect
    H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenho...of_water_vapor
    Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. The atmospheric concentration of vapor is highly variable, from less than 0.01% in extremely cold regions up to 2% in warm, humid regions.

    The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2. Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas this results in further warming, a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming.

    For a guy who takes such pride in his intelligence, you sure are wrong an awful lot of the time, whoisjohngalt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    Wow, wikipedia says man is causing global warming...I guess that is case closed then. How about we see what Snopes has to say about it while we are at it?

    One thing that you guys seem to be ignoring is that while a single molecule of water vapor may only be in the atmosphere for 9 days, it is continuously recycled into the atmosphere so you might as well consider it a permanent factor instead of a temporary one.

    In any case, if you can't look at the website that I linked, actually read it, and still not understand what a small portion of man made CO2 there really is in the atmosphere, I don't think we will ever come to an agreement.
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Here is one of my favorite and what I believe to be one of the most accurate links on this subject. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    If there is information presented on that site that is inaccurate, please let me know. As it is, I have checked the sources, believe the information and conclusions to be accurate.
    I would question the figure for anthropogenic carbon dioxide additions. And it doesn't take into account the half-life of the gases in the atmosphere (hence the false conclusion that water vapour has a significant impact on long-term temperature).

    Also, it's the increas relative to pre-industrial levels that is relevant, not the total volume of gas present in the atmosphere, since we can assume the planet was roughly in thermal equilibrium before the industrial revolution.

    Basically, read my last post... :?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    In any case, if you can't look at the website that I linked, actually read it, and still not understand what a small portion of man made CO2 there really is in the atmosphere, I don't think we will ever come to an agreement.
    The amount of CO2 as a percentage of total atmosphere is moot. It still has the impact being measured, even if (as a percentage) it only comprises a small fraction of the overall atmosphere.

    Your argument is basically that you wouldn't mind me putting militarized nerve gas into your bedroom, because it couldn't possibly have an important effect if only about 1% of the air in your room were made of it.

    So, what do you say? Let's do an empirical test. Let's make about 1% of the air in your room militarized nerve gas. After all, it couldn't possibly matter since the overall volume as a percentage is so low, right?

    I repeat my previous statement, whoisjohngalt. For someone who takes such pride in his intelligence, you sure are ignorant and wrong quite a lot of the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    In any case, if you can't look at the website that I linked, actually read it, and still not understand what a small portion of man made CO2 there really is in the atmosphere, I don't think we will ever come to an agreement.
    The amount of CO2 as a percentage of total atmosphere is moot. It still has the impact being measured, even if (as a percentage) it only comprises a small fraction of the overall atmosphere.

    Your argument is basically that you wouldn't mind me putting militarized nerve gas into your bedroom, because it couldn't possibly have an important effect if only about 1% of the air in your room were made of it.

    So, what do you say? Let's do an empirical test. Let's make about 1% of the air in your room militarized nerve gas. After all, it couldn't possibly matter since the overall volume as a percentage is so low, right?

    I repeat my previous statement, whoisjohngalt. For someone who takes such pride in his intelligence, you sure are ignorant and wrong quite a lot of the time.
    And I repeat what I have said before...for somebody who frequents a science forum, you sure do make a lot of personal attacks, fools arguments, and ridiculous statements.

    I swear I don't know why I keep coming back to this forum...maybe it's morbid curiosity about the state of our Education System...from what I recall, most of you are kids in high school.

    And, no, my argument isn't basically that since something is only 1% of a whole that it is not significant. My argument is that in order for man to be productive and industrious, he contributes 0.38% of total green house gases. Whether that is significant or not we simply do not have enough data to determine. Heck, our scientists can't even agree if we are warming or cooling.

    Isn't it past your bed time?
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    My argument is that in order for man to be productive and industrious, he contributes 0.38% of total green house gases. Whether that is significant or not we simply do not have enough data to determine.
    Thank you for clarifying your argument. It makes it much more obvious where you are mistaken. I also want to take this moment to point out how you've completely avoided addressing or responding with integrity to the previous criticisms and rebuttals of your points.

    To get right down to it, if the data presently available doesn't convince you, then there is no amount of data which will. Your interpretation of the information already available across decades and across research domains is so skewed that you appear to rational and reasonable people as little more than a person who has been indoctrinated against the obvious.








    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Heck, our scientists can't even agree if we are warming or cooling.
    This shows just how plainly silly you are on this topic, and why nobody can even begin to take you seriously. Anyone who can read a thermometer and find the mean global temperatures across the year can tell that the global annual averages have been trending very consistently upward.

    Despite the accuracy of my comment above that no amount of data will convince you, I'll post the below for others who may be reading. At least they will be able to see how foolish you are being here.






    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html
    2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mest-year.html
    In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.

    The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.13 F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s.

    "If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

    The analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements.



    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Isn't it past your bed time?
    Unfortunately, I don't have a regular bed time. I had an early call with Israel this morning, and had to present to a few executives in Singapore this evening. Both went quite well, I got significant buy-in, and approval for the budget I needed to move forward over the next 9 months, but yes... It's caused me to be up working later than I'd like and I need a bit of time to wind down, decompress, and let the adrenaline high fade. Thanks for your concern (even though your Rand worship only allows for moral bankruptcy and selfishness).


    As I said this morning... Sigh... A lie can be told in a few words. Debunking that lie can take pages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    The hottest years on record were in the 1930's, not in the 21st century. As far as the so-called 'data' from the 90's, even your skeptical science blog admits the readings were not taken in anything resembling a scientific format...putting a thermometer next to an A/C condenser??? And then submitting those findings as scientific data? Really?

    And...
    To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s.
    Since when does any respected scientist consider 40 years a long term trend when we are talking about global climate change?
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    The hottest years on record were in the 1930's, not in the 21st century.
    Well, I offered like 3 citations in support of my claim (and there were countless others in addition which I could have provided, and still can). I would like you to please respond in kind by sharing the citation you are using to make yours which is in direct contradiction.

    I strongly suspect that anything you share will NOT be discussing global annual means like mine were (probably just the continental US), and hence (if that's the case) your reply is moot, but let's see what you've got. I'm a reasonable person with a reasonable willingness to view data counter to my current understanding (unlike climate change deniers such as yourself).

    In the meantime, from my previous source, let's review your claim more closely:


    http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934...-on-record.htm
    Globally, 1934 is the 47th hottest year on record.

    The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking third behind 2006 and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 47th).

    Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 as the hottest. Right now 2010 is on track to join the top ten, which will knock 2004 off of the list. [Update: 2010 was the hottest on record, and now 2011 is on track to be the hottest on record, as January, February, and March have all posted rankings as the hottest of those months on record. -inow]

    The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is a weak argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.


    http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934...termediate.htm
    Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA. But what is the significance?
    NASA's "Y2K" glitch

    Contrary to many reports, the error wasn't a Y2K bug but a mixup over data corrections with the NOAA. NASA GISS obtain much of their temperature data from the NOAA who adjust the data to filter out primarily time-of-observation bias (although their corrections also include inhomogeneities and urban warming - more on NOAA adjustments). From January 2000, NASA were mistakenly using unadjusted data.
    USA temperature versus global temperature trends

    What is often overlooked is the temperature adjustments only applied to temperatures in 48 U.S. states. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Thus this has had infinitesimal effect on global trends.

    The graph below (courtesy of Open Mind) compares the global temperature trend from before and after adjustments. Before the error was discovered, the trend was 0.185°C/decade. After corrections were made, the trend was still 0.185°C/decade. The change to the global mean was less than one thousandth of a degree.



    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s.
    Since when does any respected scientist consider 40 years a long term trend when we are talking about global climate change?
    When the primary forcing agent which has impacted global climate is due to human behaviors which have also shifted across that time frame.


    Like I said... You're so far away from reality on this it's difficult to know where to start. You're living in a fairy tale, and simply closing your eyes and plugging your ears and screaming "la la lalalalalalalala..." doesn't change the facts.

    You're like a zombie. No matter how many times your ideas and arguments keep getting killed you keep bringing them back as if they're still somehow valid or useful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The hottest years on record were in the 1930's, not in the 21st century.
    You're simply wrong. Inow already showed the chart. Only in the US, before the advent of wide scale irrigation was the 1930's close to current changes (which I already explained)--The US is only about 2% of the globe. And it's not just the direct land temperature surface record which shows the trend, weather balloons, satellite data, glaciologist (glacier coverage), biologist (migrations, tree budding etc), oceanography (sea surface temperature, sea ice extent & sea level), geologist (boreholes) all show the same thing.

    While an extremely small group of atmospheric scientist might still doubt the cause, virtually none doubt there's a real temperature increase in recent decades.


    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s.
    Since when does any respected scientist consider 40 years a long term trend when we are talking about global climate change?
    Pretty much all of them. By definition climate is defined at 30 year or longer averages, though strong signals, such as we've had the past couple decades, can be detected with 15-20 years of data.

    Why is this in a chemistry forum, if you aren't even going to discuss the properties of the gases? As it's going now it probably would better fit pseudo science or just go in the trash.

    --
    (looking for the "jennifergovernment" avatar member to save this thread)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Why is this in a chemistry forum, if you aren't even going to discuss the properties of the gases? As it's going now it probably would better fit pseudo science or just go in the trash.
    I suspect the OP was asked this question by a teacher, and was expected to discuss spectra and the qualities of CO2 versus H20 on radiation, but then our atlas shrugging friend decided to jump in with his "moon landing conspiracy" and "evidence for bigfoot and aliens at area 52 is being hidden" style climate replies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    First of all, whoisjohngalt is full of shit, and he's really quite wrong above. Second of all, carbon dioxide is known as a climate forcing agent, wherein water is a climate feedback agent. Third, the build up of water vapor tends to end in a neat phenomenon I like to call "rain," and only stays in the atmosphere on average for 7 to 10 days. However, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for centuries, and builds on that which came before.
    Isn't calling someone "full of shit" a violation of the terms to which everyone here agreed? How "scientific" is that, saying "whoisjohngalt is full of shit"? Answer: Not at all scientific. Rather it is ignorance, as expressed so often and so fully by Al Gore and his countless sycophants.

    On we go to analyze more of inow:


    People look at water vapor when studying climate, so don't ever let someone lie to you and pretend they don't, but we're also not exactly digging long since sequestered stores of water from deep underground and releasing it. (sic) The water in the atmosphere has been in the system for a very long time... it's already part of a system which has adjusted to it and found a balance... There is an equilibrium with the water in the system.
    inow misses the point, repeatedly, and intentionally.
    How?

    1. After claiming that water vapor falls out as rain in "7 to 10 days," inow claims that "water vapor in the atmosphere has been in the system for a very long time."

    So which is it, inow, 7 to 10 days, or "a very long time"? It cannot be both, but you will spin this suit your agenda. On that we can rely.

    2. Equilibria are functions of reactions or the lack of reactions. Whether a molecule has been present for a second or a year, it is indistinguishable from any older or newer arrived molecule. The pretense of arrival date as having anything to do with chemical reactions belies a breathtaking ignorance of chemistry.

    However, in addition to carbon remaining in the atmosphere for centuries after being burned (as opposed to only 7 to 10 days then raining down like water), we've been taking that carbon out of deep underground stores and reserves and reintroducing it to the air by burning it... it wasn't part of the atmospheric system before... it was sequestered... But, when we drill and dig it out and then burn it, it's back in the air again, and the air then needs to find equilibrium again... It becomes out of balance... as previously that carbon was locked away beneath the earth.
    "It becomes out of balance" to the tune of ~1 additional part per million annual increase. Ooooh eeeee.

    Carbon doesn't turn into rain in 2 weeks like water. People who study climate science grasp this. People who study Fox news and think human induced climate change is a big conspiracy don't. Those people are ridiculous morons worthy of ridicule and dismissal.
    Carbon is not in the atmosphere. Carbon is a solid. You must be talking about carbon dioxide. People who confuse carbon and carbon dioxide are "ridiculous morons worthy of ridicule and dismissal." (Your words.)

    Now... Do you think your teacher will notice the fact that I just did your homework for you when you fail this question on their test in a few days?
    Grade: F

    Now please this:

    The Keeling Curve is one of the more well-known and commonly published fabrications of the Global Warming Cabal.
    A simple examination of what I call the “Scary Graph” will expose the lie of Global Warming.
    First, the “Scary Graph” :
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com...-story?start=1

    Note that the base is not zero. This non-zero basis severely distorts th.e upward slope artificially, the better to mislead you.

    Next note that the metric for carbon dioxide is “ppm” or “parts per million.” Three hundred eighty parts per million is 0.00038. It gets much, much worse.

    Far from being the ONLY greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is trivial in concentration compared to water vapor, which constitutes roughly 21,000 parts per million.

    Moreover, the creators of the “Scary Graph” imply that as miniscule as this annual increase, ~1 part per million per year of carbon dioxide is, all of it comes from humans. Not remotely true. Some 97% or so of it is naturally caused.

    The pretense that ~1 part per million annual increase in greenhouse gases, totalling about 22,000 parts per million is somehow driving the climate is the height of anti-science and anti-intellectualism, at which the left has always excelled
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The amount of CO2 as a percentage of total atmosphere is moot. It still has the impact being measured, even if (as a percentage) it only comprises a small fraction of the overall atmosphere.
    Which is of course why every environmentalist saint in the world is desperately insisting that humans CUT BACK on our carbon dioxide footprints 50% by 2050.

    You first. No more vacations. No more dinner or movies out. No more travel to see friends or relatives. No more hot baths or hot showers. No more hot food.
    In fact, the only thing you will be able to do with your tiny allocation of carbon dioxide is to drive to work, and not very far at that. Then drive home. That's it.
    You see, by 2050, world population will be up ~40%, while YOUR allocation will have to be reduced by some 70%. Have a nice permanent worldwide depression for "moot" things.

    Your argument is basically that you wouldn't mind me putting militarized nerve gas into your bedroom, because it couldn't possibly have an important effect if only about 1% of the air in your room were made of it.
    First, you claim the carbon dioxide is "moot," and then you're putting 1% nerve gas in this man's bedroom. You're too kind. Please look up the Stanley Milgram Experiment. You are one of those many students who no doubt would push the button on the furthest extreme of shock, sending your charges to their hypothetical deaths.

    So, what do you say? Let's do an empirical test. Let's make about 1% of the air in your room militarized nerve gas. After all, it couldn't possibly matter since the overall volume as a percentage is so low, right?
    As opposed to the civilian brand of nerve gas, right?

    I repeat my previous statement, whoisjohngalt. For someone who takes such pride in his intelligence, you sure are ignorant and wrong quite a lot of the time.
    Brilliantly stated by a "tolerant" and "moderate" leftist who embraces *science*.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    I suppose you think any of that warrants a reply?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •