In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Dungheap said:
Aox: These guys are really, really smart. One guy went to the moon!

Me: Yeah, he also went on Alex Jones, so . . .

SF: Oh, so going on a show negates his experience and training?

Me: What experience and training does he have on the subject?

SF: He can do math.

Me: Um, it's not really a math problem.

SF: Oh, yeah, what experience and training do you have?

Aox: Good one.


Fin.
Click to expand...


LMAO... do you understand the bulk of the data is compiled and analyzed via statistical analysis? Do you understand how computer models are derived?

Tell me again how math isn't involved.

That said Dung... I said he was an engineer... not that he was simply good at math. Funny how you cannot help but create straw men.
 
Dungheap said:
There's no data to respond to, SF. It's a guy saying that since plants benefit from increased CO2, everything will be awesome in an environment of increased CO2. It's a facially ridiculous argument.

Also, too, I only "attacked the messenger" after Aox appealed to their "authority." So, take it up with him, hotshot.
Click to expand...

What is ridiculous is your over simplification of what he stated. You exaggerate his comments to the extreme and then once again knock down your straw man.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Here is the simplified first-order approximation expression for CO2. A doubling of CO2 concentration only gives you around a 1.2 C temperature rise but that doesn't alarm anybody, even you, so they have to make up all kinds of fanciful positive feedbacks to get you really shitting yourself.

74945338ec357d4a68e5f5356f8f19a0.png


where C is the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration in parts per million by volume and C[SUB]0[/SUB] is the reference concentration.[SUP][6][/SUP] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
Click to expand...


No way did you just post an equation... Dung has already stated that math isn't involved.
 
Watermark the Red said:
So your argument is that we should terraform our natural environment, that we evolved in? You don't see that as foolhardy and dangerous?


Just admit it, rightists will say and believe anything and everything that allows them to avoid regulations for that are for the good of society. They are selfish, and would rather humanity perish than they have Rio help save it.
Click to expand...

Well we have got to 400 ppm CO2 and there hasn't been any warming for nigh on seventeen years. It took less time than that for alarmists to tell us that the world was about to end.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Here is the simplified first-order approximation expression for CO2. A doubling of CO2 concentration only gives you around a 1.2 C temperature rise but that doesn't alarm anybody, even you, so they have to make up all kinds of fanciful positive feedbacks to get you really shitting yourself.

74945338ec357d4a68e5f5356f8f19a0.png


where C is the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration in parts per million by volume and C[SUB]0[/SUB] is the reference concentration.[SUP][6][/SUP] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
Click to expand...


The alarmists argue that the 1.2 degree forcing is not the whole picture. They argue that additional evaporation will lead to greater concentration of water vapor. This is the only feedback they consider and ignore the changes to albedo by cloud formation. So it's not a simple equation in reality.

It leads me to one conclusion: Without accurate models of water vapor and cloud formation and their respective forcing components, it would be impossible to find the effects of CO2 changes since water is about 100 X more effective at acting as a greenhouse gas.

It's like looking for change of hundreths of a degree when the instument is gradiated in tenths. You can't do it.
 
tinfoil said:
The alarmists argue that the 1.2 degree forcing is not the whole picture. They argue that additional evaporation will lead to greater concentration of water vapor. This is the only feedback they consider and ignore the changes to albedo by cloud formation. So it's not a simple equation in reality.

It leads me to one conclusion: Without accurate models of water vapor and cloud formation and their respective forcing components, it would be impossible to find the effects of CO2 changes since water is about 100 X more effective at acting as a greenhouse gas.

It's like looking for change of hundreths of a degree when the instument is gradiated in tenths. You can't do it.
Click to expand...

They also talk about release of methane from the Arctic tundra, less reflection of sunlight from a less icy Arctic Ocean and cold water from the Greenland ice cap affecting the Atlantic Conveyor. It is pretty much a case of throwing everything against the wall and seeing if anything sticks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top