Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Jinx said:
Page unavailable? Yep that's convinced me.
Oh and quoting wiki for a character assassination of Dr Willie Soon? Poor form dear boy - you may as well quote verbatim desmogblog.
For balance - https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/will...
Another Heartland person. What a surprise. Most denial organisations lead there.Oh and quoting wiki for a character assassination of Dr Willie Soon? Poor form dear boy - you may as well quote verbatim desmogblog.
For balance - https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/will...
robinessex said:
So why no planet Armageddon when the CO2, in the past, was higher? Dinosaurs thrived on it for 50,000,000 years or so! Which it always has been. Opps, nearly forgot. Does it mattered if the planet get a miniscule amount warmer? Question never answered here so far, despite what Durbcter claims, just lots of evasion and blinkers on.
No correlation there !!
It's not just the absolute, it's the rate of change. No correlation there !!
Edited by robinessex on Friday 28th April 09:47
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague
Good grief, you've sunk to the robinessex level of argument!There are no certainties in any field of science. That's how it works.
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
DapperDanMan said:
PRTVR said:
DapperDanMan said:
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
You really think this is a useful way to present information?
Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.
How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?
Is that fire bigger than Africa?
Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?
You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!
Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet
The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're rambling about. The article is simply using something easy to understand to illustrate something. It's directed at people who believe that human activity has little or no impact on the planet.Burning a coniferous forest of size X produces the same amount of CO2 as the total of all the fossil fuels being burnt by man.
How big is that fire, a total of all the little explosions in petrol and diesel engines, all the gas jets in the world's central heating boilers, all the coal furnaces heating water for power stations, all the wood burning stoves in summer houses in gardens all added together into one big fire?
Is that fire bigger than Africa?
Why a chose a coniferous forest for this illustration? Why not some other substance that releases less CO2 when burnt?
You could select any substance to burn on your imaginary fire, and then you could have a fire as large or small as you like!
Burn something with large CO2 content = Fire the size of a squirrel
Burn something with tiny CO2 content = Fire the size of the planet
The whole article is pointless and illustrates nothing to anyone, as there is no frame of reference to compare it to.
Perhaps someone else here can understand my questions above and can explain them to you?
The article states that it is trying to put the level of emissions into a context that most people can understand. So on current output they say Africa + 30% as a constantly burning forest fire is equivalent to the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Now that is a very sobering thought for anyone to read and if it is alarming then maybe that is because it is something to be concerned about.
personally I am more worried about the rise in log burners due to worries about power cuts, a few people I know have you them for this reason, what use to be smokeless zones now have the lots of wood burning stoves pumping out their waste .
DapperDanMan said:
Silver Smudger said:
...snip...
Have you considered the possibility that it is you that is the problem here. You want the world to be what you believe it to be but when something comes along to challenge that world model your mind rejects it.The article states that it is trying to put the level of emissions into a context that most people can understand. So on current output they say Africa + 30% as a constantly burning forest fire is equivalent to the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Now that is a very sobering thought for anyone to read and if it is alarming then maybe that is because it is something to be concerned about.
I was pointing out how arbitrary and meaningless it was as a comparison - No-one can picture the CO2 output of a fire the size of Africa
One can try and imagine a fire that big, but it will tell you nothing
Einion Yrth 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"yikes indeed.
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?
Silver Smudger said:
DapperDanMan said:
Silver Smudger said:
...snip...
Have you considered the possibility that it is you that is the problem here. You want the world to be what you believe it to be but when something comes along to challenge that world model your mind rejects it.The article states that it is trying to put the level of emissions into a context that most people can understand. So on current output they say Africa + 30% as a constantly burning forest fire is equivalent to the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Now that is a very sobering thought for anyone to read and if it is alarming then maybe that is because it is something to be concerned about.
I was pointing out how arbitrary and meaningless it was as a comparison - No-one can picture the CO2 output of a fire the size of Africa
One can try and imagine a fire that big, but it will tell you nothing
DapperDanMan said:
Well I can imagine it and find it appalling, it told me something so your theory already has 1 result that contradicts it so I guess you need a new theory.
Imagine it without the smoke, heat, light and destruction - a colourless gas emitted over the entire planet (you know like what is actually happening over the entire planet (at night time)) Still appalling or merely Gaia breathing out.
Jinx said:
DapperDanMan said:
Well I can imagine it and find it appalling, it told me something so your theory already has 1 result that contradicts it so I guess you need a new theory.
Imagine it without the smoke, heat, light and destruction - a colourless gas emitted over the entire planet (you know like what is actually happening over the entire planet (at night time)) Still appalling or merely Gaia breathing out.
Jinx said:
DapperDanMan said:
Well I can imagine it and find it appalling, it told me something so your theory already has 1 result that contradicts it so I guess you need a new theory.
Imagine it without the smoke, heat, light and destruction - a colourless gas emitted over the entire planet (you know like what is actually happening over the entire planet (at night time)) Still appalling or merely Gaia breathing out.
plunker said:
Out of those two I'd have to for appaling I think, or perhaps Gaia having the mother of all belches - it's a massive sudden injection of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere at a speed and scale that's quite probably unprecedented in earth's entire history. Millions and millions of years of carbon sequestration released in the blink of an eye, like a firework going off - poof!
Which is fantastic for the plants that have been CO2 starved for years. It isn't just solar death that could cause the end of life on this planet - lack of CO2 via carbon sequestration by sea creatures into the ocean depths could theoretically cause the end of all life (much more plausible than Hansen's "boiling oceans") Thankfully mankind has found a way to release CO2 back into the atmosphere which without any positive feedback from water vapor has no net downside. Way to go mankind!
Edited by Jinx on Friday 28th April 15:45
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Out of those two I'd have to for appaling I think, or perhaps Gaia having the mother of all belches - it's a massive sudden injection of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere at a speed and scale that's quite probably unprecedented in earth's entire history. Millions and millions of years of carbon sequestration released in the blink of an eye, like a firework going off - poof!
Which is fantastic for the plants that have been CO2 starved for years. It isn't just solar death that could cause the end of life on this planet - lack of CO2 via carbon sequestration by sea creatures into the ocean depths could theoretically cause the end of all life (much more plausible than Hansen's "boiling oceans") Thankfully mankind has found a way to release CO2 back into the atmosphere which without any positive feedback from water vapor has no net downside. Way to go mankind!
Edited by Jinx on Friday 28th April 15:45
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Out of those two I'd have to for appaling I think, or perhaps Gaia having the mother of all belches - it's a massive sudden injection of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere at a speed and scale that's quite probably unprecedented in earth's entire history. Millions and millions of years of carbon sequestration released in the blink of an eye, like a firework going off - poof!
Which is fantastic for the plants that have been CO2 starved for years. It isn't just solar death that could cause the end of life on this planet - lack of CO2 via carbon sequestration by sea creatures into the ocean depths could theoretically cause the end of all life (much more plausible than Hansen's "boiling oceans") Thankfully mankind has found a way to release CO2 back into the atmosphere which without any positive feedback form water vapor has no net downside. Way to go mankind!
DapperDanMan said:
Please explain your water vapour theory to us all......
It's all in the IPCC reports. For dangerous AGW to occur the theoretical warming from a doubling of CO2 requires a positive feedback from an increase in water vapor; this turns the pleasant for everyone 1 degree per doubling into the dangerous "we're all gonna die" 3 degrees. Without the feedback there is no dangerous AGW. As yet there is no evidence of this positive feedback and with cloud formation and it's apparent unknowable sign (so we'll just ignore them in the GCMs) we have the situation where all models run hot.The climate isn't responding to CO2 as expected, water vapor isn't responding as expected, the Antarctic isn't behaving as expected - isn't it time to re-visit the expectations?
DapperDanMan said:
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Out of those two I'd have to for appaling I think, or perhaps Gaia having the mother of all belches - it's a massive sudden injection of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere at a speed and scale that's quite probably unprecedented in earth's entire history. Millions and millions of years of carbon sequestration released in the blink of an eye, like a firework going off - poof!
Which is fantastic for the plants that have been CO2 starved for years. It isn't just solar death that could cause the end of life on this planet - lack of CO2 via carbon sequestration by sea creatures into the ocean depths could theoretically cause the end of all life (much more plausible than Hansen's "boiling oceans") Thankfully mankind has found a way to release CO2 back into the atmosphere which without any positive feedback from water vapor has no net downside. Way to go mankind!
Edited by Jinx on Friday 28th April 15:45
Jinx said:
DapperDanMan said:
Please explain your water vapour theory to us all......
It's all in the IPCC reports. For dangerous AGW to occur the theoretical warming from a doubling of CO2 requires a positive feedback from an increase in water vapor; this turns the pleasant for everyone 1 degree per doubling into the dangerous "we're all gonna die" 3 degrees. Without the feedback there is no dangerous AGW. As yet there is no evidence of this positive feedback and with cloud formation and it's apparent unknowable sign (so we'll just ignore them in the GCMs) we have the situation where all models run hot.The climate isn't responding to CO2 as expected, water vapor isn't responding as expected, the Antarctic isn't behaving as expected - isn't it time to re-visit the expectations?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff