Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Gandahar]

An interesting topic on warm and dry winds in Antarctica causing ice shelves to calve.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/new-insight-into-...

föhn winds ..

[robinessex]

Gandahar said:

An interesting topic on warm and dry winds in Antarctica causing ice shelves to calve.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/new-insight-into-...

föhn winds ..

Natural phenomena then !!

[durbster]

If you think human impact on the earth systems is too small to be relevant, here's a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounde...

The natural equivalent of our burning of fossil fuels would be to burn down a forest the size of the entire continent of Africa - plus another third.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

If you think human impact on the earth systems is too small to be relevant, here's a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounde...

The natural equivalent of our burning of fossil fuels would be to burn down a forest the size of the entire continent of Africa - plus another third.

It's still only 0.0000000000000000000000001% of fk all. Haven't you heard of percentage Durbster?

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

If you think human impact on the earth systems is too small to be relevant, here's a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounde...

The natural equivalent of our burning of fossil fuels would be to burn down a forest the size of the entire continent of Africa - plus another third.

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

[Einion Yrth]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

Do you not accept the Beer-Lambert law?

[durbster]

Einion Yrth said:

Do you not accept the Beer-Lambert law?

No idea. What is it?

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

[jet_noise]

durbster said:

Einion Yrth said:

Do you not accept the Beer-Lambert law?

No idea. What is it?

Words fail!

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Pretty much everyone who studies these things says otherwise, so on what basis are you saying they're wrong?

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to either properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:23

[robinessex]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Glad you used the word 'thought' in that paragraph. No proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

[plunker]

robinessex said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Glad you used the word 'thought' in that paragraph. No proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

The size of our CO2 emissions needs to be weighed in terms of it's greenhouse effect potential not against the whole bulk of the atmosphere. Your reasoning is unscientific and worthless.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

If you think human impact on the earth systems is too small to be relevant, here's a nice and simple visualisation of the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounde...

The natural equivalent of our burning of fossil fuels would be to burn down a forest the size of the entire continent of Africa - plus another third.

Or to word it another way - We are NOT actually burning down a coniferous forest the size of Africa, and all that article does is explain that IF there was a forest fire the size of Africa THEN that would produce a years worth of man-caused CO2. The summary near the end says...

"If that was actually happening, if a continental forest area 30% larger than Africa burnt to a crisp each and every year, we might be a bit concerned. Yes, a raging fire of 42 million square kilometers has some additional, immediate hazards above and beyond what comes out of a car exhaust or a power plant. And yes, the total mass of emitted CO2 does not reflect the total amount of absorbed CO2 in a year or the net increase. But wouldn't we all be a little concerned about the impact on the global system?"

So just scaremongering then - No attempt to provide scale for man-made emitted CO2 as compared to the actual absorbed CO2 in the atmosphere, just Imagine Africa On Fire!!!

[robinessex]

plunker said:

robinessex said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Glad you used the word 'thought' in that paragraph. No proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

The size of our CO2 emissions needs to be weighed in terms of it's greenhouse effect potential not against the whole bulk of the atmosphere. Your reasoning is unscientific and worthless.

Nothing to do with being "unscientific and worthless". Again, no proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

[Silver Smudger]

Gandahar said:

An interesting topic on warm and dry winds in Antarctica causing ice shelves to calve.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/new-insight-into-...

föhn winds ..

In 1995 and 2002, the Larsen A and B ice shelves collapsed, depositing an area the size of Shropshire into the Weddell Sea.


Area of Shropshire : 3,487 km²

Area of Antarctica : 14,000,000 km²

Area of Worlds Oceans : 361,900,000 km²



Of course, the ocean is an average of approx 3688m deep, so what sense of the scale of the problem can we actually get from the article? Not much, especially as it also says... "ice shelf collapse doesn’t directly contribute to sea level rise".

In fact "the glaciers which fed into the ice shelves accelerated, leading to the loss of land ice, and subsequently indirect sea level rise.", but we are not told by how much - So while this article is quite interesting from the gaining scientific knowledge point of view, I am not sure why it has been posted on the Climate Change thread

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

Or to word it another way - We are NOT actually burning down a coniferous forest the size of Africa, and all that article does is explain that IF there was a forest fire the size of Africa THEN that would produce a years worth of man-caused CO2. The summary near the end says...

"If that was actually happening, if a continental forest area 30% larger than Africa burnt to a crisp each and every year, we might be a bit concerned. Yes, a raging fire of 42 million square kilometers has some additional, immediate hazards above and beyond what comes out of a car exhaust or a power plant. And yes, the total mass of emitted CO2 does not reflect the total amount of absorbed CO2 in a year or the net increase. But wouldn't we all be a little concerned about the impact on the global system?"

So just scaremongering then - No attempt to provide scale for man-made emitted CO2 as compared to the actual absorbed CO2 in the atmosphere, just Imagine Africa On Fire!!!

Erm, try reading it again, I think you've misunderstood.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

Or to word it another way - We are NOT actually burning down a coniferous forest the size of Africa, and all that article does is explain that IF there was a forest fire the size of Africa THEN that would produce a years worth of man-caused CO2. The summary near the end says...

"If that was actually happening, if a continental forest area 30% larger than Africa burnt to a crisp each and every year, we might be a bit concerned. Yes, a raging fire of 42 million square kilometers has some additional, immediate hazards above and beyond what comes out of a car exhaust or a power plant. And yes, the total mass of emitted CO2 does not reflect the total amount of absorbed CO2 in a year or the net increase. But wouldn't we all be a little concerned about the impact on the global system?"

So just scaremongering then - No attempt to provide scale for man-made emitted CO2 as compared to the actual absorbed CO2 in the atmosphere, just Imagine Africa On Fire!!!

Erm, try reading it again, I think you've misunderstood.

I am still having trouble - Can you highlight in the article where they "provide scale for man-made emitted CO2 as compared to the actual absorbed CO2 in the atmosphere" ?

What it appears to me to be saying is :-

There is in fact an amount of CO2 emitted by man's activities (burning fossil fuels)
&
This amount of CO2 could also be emitted by burning a forest 1.3 times the size of Africa

This comparison to an imaginary event does not actually tell me anything useful about mankind's impact on the planet, at all - What am I missing?

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

This comparison to an imaginary event does not actually tell me anything useful about mankind's impact on the planet, at all - What am I missing?

If there were a fire significantly larger than the continent of Africa, do you think people would be likely to conclude that it was having no effect on the planet's atmosphere?