2014 hottest year on record

Henning said:
Problem is we increase CO2 release at the same time we destroy more CO2 consuming regions. If we used Fuel Cells to pull the electricity from Natural gas, we would increase the electric output 14%-35%, and be able to run the CO2 released from the NG directly through algae reactors to store as energy that can be used as feed, food, or fuel.
Click to expand...

Yup.... algae farms could be located next to powerplants... As it is now. Wyoming is pumping millions of Cu ft of CO2 deep in the ground for sequestration reasons..... What a waste of energy and resources..:mad2::mad2:
 
The tendency of the mmgw crowd to cloud the water ith a bunch of nonsense while ignoring the lack f integrity in their science, and community, as grants and income distribution have far more value than the truth, is too great a burden to overcome for the majority if Americans.

That's why the true believers are getting so mad.

Between climate gate and the ever changing "settled"science, and the habit of the "settled" science crowd to embrace anything, everything and nothing as "proof" that they need more money and power, is their undoing.

What used to be so easy has become nearly ipossible but the ideologues desire total socialism so badly, they can never admit they're "settled" science is full of **** 90% of the time.
 
Everskyward said:
Did someone figure out if you could get 10,000 dots in those squares? Otherwise it's not very accurate.
Click to expand...

It's precisely accurate. It was sized to 100 pixels by 100 pixels with single pixel dots. It was scaled up for readability, but the proportions remain identical.
 
azure said:
Then you missed the point, which was that you can't judge the impact of so many ppm of ANYTHING by looking at a graphic showing how little of the stuff it is.
Click to expand...

Not even for basic proportionality?? :dunno:

Do you have any other examples of something in nature that's "perfect" at 3:10,000 but is disastrous at 4:10,000?
 
LDJones said:
It's precisely accurate. It was sized to 100 pixels by 100 pixels with single pixel dots. It was scaled up for readability, but the proportions remain identical.
Click to expand...


It's still meaningless with regard to whatever effect CO2 has or doesn't have on the climate.
 
Everskyward said:
It's still meaningless with regard to whatever effect CO2 has or doesn't have on the climate.
Click to expand...

See my previous post. Point me to something else in nature that a like proportional change has disastrous consequences.
 
LDJones said:
See my previous post. Point me to something else in nature that a like proportional change has disastrous consequences.
Click to expand...


A 33% increase in many things could have disastrous consequences. But we are not talking about things in general and I never claimed an increase in CO2 would have disastrous consequences. I am trying to understand the issue from a purely rational perspective which is difficult when people post meaningless gotcha BS.
 
LDJones said:
Not even for basic proportionality?? :dunno:

Do you have any other examples of something in nature that's "perfect" at 3:10,000 but is disastrous at 4:10,000?
Click to expand...
If you're only talking about proportionality, then definitely. Many biological systems are fragile in the sense that they're tuned to function well within narrow ranges of parameters - body temperature, electrolytes in the blood, etc. I'm not sure why you think the absolute concentration means anything. If x is just right and the system is finely tuned in that parameter, then no matter how small x is, 1.33x might make a lot of difference.

Not to say that our climate IS that sensitive, but I don't think your arguments say anything one way or the other.
 
Everskyward said:
A 33% increase in many things could have disastrous consequences. But we are not talking about things in general and I never claimed an increase in CO2 would have disastrous consequences. I am trying to understand the issue from a purely rational perspective which is difficult when people post meaningless gotcha BS.
Click to expand...

You're obfuscating with your own BS. Point to another example where an increase from 3:10,000 to 4:10,000 makes even a significant difference.
 
azure said:
If you're only talking about proportionality, then definitely. Many biological systems are fragile in the sense that they're tuned to function well within narrow ranges of parameters - body temperature, electrolytes in the blood, etc. I'm not sure why you think the absolute concentration means anything. If x is just right and the system is finely tuned in that parameter, then no matter how small x is, 1.33x might make a lot of difference.

Not to say that our climate IS that sensitive, but I don't think your arguments say anything one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of lots of Fine Tuning in the universe that provides for our unique existence. This just doesn't appear to be one of them based on the historical record.
 
LDJones said:
I'm well aware of lots of Fine Tuning in the universe that provides for our unique existence. This just doesn't appear to be one of them based on the historical record.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about constants of nature where if they were slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. I mean that complex systems can have narrow stability ranges.

The historical record of global temperatures goes back less than two centuries. Proxies give conflicting results in enough cases to leave large uncertainties in estimates of natural variability. The bottom line is, we can't really say from the record how fine tuned the climate system is.
 
There are a lot of smart people posting in this thread. Could someone tell me the accuracy of the sensors used to obtain these CO2 measurement? A link to some of the meters used would be great too.
 
LDJones said:
You're obfuscating with your own BS. Point to another example where an increase from 3:10,000 to 4:10,000 makes even a significant difference.
Click to expand...
It was a joke cartoon, meant to get a laugh, just like when someone says, "It's -20 out, must be global warming!" But you are presenting it as some kind of scientific evidence.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
It was a joke cartoon, meant to get a laugh, just like when someone says, "It's -20 out, must be global warming!" But you are presenting it as some kind of scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

I know you're really not that dense. There's no joke involved. It's a perfectly accurate representation of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
LDJones said:
I know you're really not that dense. There's no joke involved. It's a perfectly accurate representation of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
The joke is in the fact that it was designed to get people to think, look! so few molecules! how could that make a difference?? But as Azure pointed out, sometimes small concentrations of substances can make a big difference. As I also pointed out, that graphic indicates a 33% increase in dots. Without defining what effect individual dots have, the graphic is meaningless.
 
Kind of like the difference of putting three drops of oil into the Pacific ocean or four drops.
 
The entire country is in a deep freeze. L.A. got snow. LOL!
 
Everskyward said:
The joke is in the fact that it was designed to get people to think, look! so few molecules! how could that make a difference?? But as Azure pointed out, sometimes small concentrations of substances can make a big difference. As I also pointed out, that graphic indicates a 33% increase in dots. Without defining what effect individual dots have, the graphic is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Interpret it any way you like. Fact are facts.
 
Anthony said:
The entire country is in a deep freeze. L.A. got snow. LOL!
Click to expand...

You know that means nothing....unless it's warm enough to rain at Christmas where Steingar lives....then THAT'S significant! :goofy:
 
N801BH said:
Well , there ya have it... Mari and Azure are right....

We are ALL gonna die...:yikes::hairraise:
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct. We're all ALL gonna die. That's a scientific FACT.
 
Actually I think it's kinda humorous that people think they can guess what "side" I'm on in the debate over CO2. If someone even entertains the possibility that man might be causing a portion of the problem it makes them a doomsdayer. I think scientists have gotten some pieces figured out but the system is much too complex to draw any airtight conclusions. On the other hand, I don't think that analogies about dots on paper or drops in water show anything at all.
 
vintage cessna said:
http://realplanet.eu/backrad.htm
Click to expand...
Okay, I don't have time for a detailed analysis, but since his main point is apparently about back radiation, I'll just quote a couple of paragraphs. First:
In the light of the laws of vector analysis, it is useful to split the flux of terrestrial long-wave radiation shown in Fig. 1 (393 W/m²) into its components, namely heat dissipation by radiation into space (45 W/m²), and re-radiation of “atmospheric backradiation" (348 W/m²). Now it is clear that only the 45 W/m² is thermal radiation of the earth's surface, see Fig. 2. The remaining 348 W/m² and the “atmospheric backradiation”, which is equal in size but opposite in direction, sum to zero. So this breakdown into outgoing radiation from the surface and “atmospheric backradiation” is sheer physical nonsense.
Click to expand...
I like his decomposition of the surface longwave emission into a component that balances the back radiation, and the total minus that component. It's not quite correct that the difference is what escapes into space, but it's close. Anyway what he has inadvertently shown there is that the 2nd law is NOT violated because the net radiation flux is from warmer to cooler.

But when he says
The picture of the radiant fluxes presented in Fig. 2 makes it clear that any value is possible for the component of longwave terrestrial radiation that might return as “atmospheric backradiation”. Provided the final effective thermal radiation flowing from Earth toward space amounts to 45 W/m², the share of the remaining 348 W/m² flux of radiation that participates in the radiation-"atmospheric backradiation" cycle could assume any value from zero to infinity. Only one condition must be satisfied: that the total of the components of longwave radiation caused by recycled “atmospheric backradiation” and “atmospheric backradiation” itself must be zero.
Click to expand...
he is clearly way off base. The condition that has to be satisfied is that the thermal radiation from the surface is 393 W/m2, or whatever the S-B law says it must be for whatever the surface *temperature* is. So if the atmospheric window is 45 W/m2 and all the other components of the surface energy budget balance, the back radiation has to be 348 W/m2.

His link to the NASA energy budget graphic is broken, but I posted a link to the updated graphic earlier in the thread, and it clearly shows the back radiation. He can insist all he wants that back radiation is "physical nonsense", but since it has been measured, all he's showing is that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I didn't read the rest of the article.
 
vintage cessna said:
http://realplanet.eu/atmoseffect.htm
Click to expand...
This is a very nicely presented, but very fallacious paper.

His shell has a shortwave albedo of 0.3 (like Earth) but is a near-perfect longwave absorber/emitter (also like Earth). In step 4, if the surface temperature is 288 K, the shell will simply absorb thermal radiation from the surface, radiate the excess into space, and the whole toy model will come to thermal equilibrium at 255 K.

He is also wrong that removing the shell will leave the same conditions in place because the top of an atmosphere without GHGs will not radiate like a blackbody.

Enough for now...
 
Last edited:
vintage cessna said:
http://realplanet.eu/error.htm
Click to expand...

Could we maybe get a comment about Azure's responses before we get a third link? I'm way out of my league on the physics and doing my best to keep up, but failure to offer your rebuttal gives the appearance that you're similarly out of your league and just trying to get something to stick. That's perhaps not the case, but that's how it looks.
 
asechrest said:
Could we maybe get a comment about Azure's responses before we get a third link? I'm way out of my league on the physics and doing my best to keep up, but failure to offer your rebuttal gives the appearance that you're similarly out of your league and just trying to get something to stick. That's perhaps not the case, but that's how it looks.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeking Azure's comments since I already know her position. Just showing some alternate viewpoints.
 
ChrisK said:
I think I see the problem. What is the difference between science and opinion?
Click to expand...
write-stuff said:
Hehehe... don't confuse me with facts. Didn't Kim Ham say something to this effect on TV a while back?
Click to expand...

Facts? What does that word mean? I believe that you are referring to your data set which I have reason to believe was cherry picked to fit the hypothesis. Climate science is still in a very primitive state compared to other branches of science so you will need much more than your "facts" to convince me of anything.
 
Gary F said:
Facts? What does that word mean? I believe that you are referring to your data set which I have reason to believe was cherry picked to fit the hypothesis. Climate science is still in a very primitive state compared to other branches of science so you will need much more than your "facts" to convince me of anything.
Click to expand...


I would have been ok with saying that science contains opinion. It does and i think it has to. I think science + opinion is more credible than anything else + opinion, or just the kind of plain old opinion I am used to seeing. Why do you think the counterpoint above tries to use math and physics? It is because such lends credibility to arguements.

The problem is I am not qualified to determine the veracity of either. I am qualified to note the complete BS of emotional unsubstantiated arguements based on political or cult-of-personality based views.
 
ChrisK said:
I would have been ok with saying that science contains opinion. It does and i think it has to. I think science + opinion is more credible than anything else + opinion, or just the kind of plain old opinion I am used to seeing. Why do you think the counterpoint above tries to use math and physics? It is because such lends credibility to arguements.
Click to expand...
:dunno:
ChrisK said:
The problem is I am not qualified to determine the veracity of either. I am qualified to note the complete BS of emotional unsubstantiated arguements based on political or cult-of-personality based views.
Click to expand...
What's new here? You believe your opinions better than others. Me too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top