Results 2,351 to 2,375 of 3644
-
10-23-2019, 02:48 PM #2351Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- idaho panhandle!
- Posts
- 9,950
-
10-23-2019, 02:59 PM #2352Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,656
-
10-23-2019, 03:02 PM #2353Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
Didn't Unabomber basically warn us all that the industrial revolution would be the demise of man? Too bad his tactics sucked.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
-
10-23-2019, 04:34 PM #2354Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- idaho panhandle!
- Posts
- 9,950
-
10-23-2019, 05:17 PM #2355Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Seriously? This is your exact quote: "What we’ve learned through studying these long-term processes is that CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system. CO2 controls these large scale shifts in climate over the Earth’s history."
Apologies for saying control knob instead of just control.
The fact that Ron and wattsupwiththat ignore spatial variability and lag correlations in their rebuttals and instead repeatedly lie about and misrepresent arguments in order to make their points should, by now, be enough evidence of the weakness of Ron's arguments.
I ended up dismissing one of the rebuttals I provided to the Shakun paper because the spacial variability was a valid criticism. The other two rebuttals do not have that problem.
What am I lying and misrepresenting here?
-- In a nutshell for the warming: 1) The Earth's orbital cycles trigger initial warming. 2) Arctic ice melts flooding the oceans with fresh water which changes ocean circulation. 3) Over the course of millennia this leads to oscillation between the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. 4) Several millennia later as a result of the initial ocean warming large amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. 5) After the influx of CO2 the vast majority of warming, something like 90-93%, occurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
For the cooling: The climate system tends to operate with thermostatic properties. If it starts getting too warm some properties kick in the cause it to cool back down. For example, if temperature starts getting warm then feedback from invigorated precipitation and invigorated moisture increases chemical weathering which takes CO2 out of the atmosphere which then causes things to cool down. As the planet cools the oceans cool and because cold water has a higher degree of CO2 solubility it soaks up carbon from the atmosphere.
-
10-23-2019, 05:19 PM #2356Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-23-2019, 05:27 PM #2357Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-23-2019, 05:30 PM #2358watch out for snakes
-
10-23-2019, 05:35 PM #2359Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
10-23-2019, 07:49 PM #2360
^^ Agreed, deniers want to argue CO2 is an effect not a cause but in other contexts they'll readily admit it's a cause. Are they even aware of how necessary greenhouse gasses are to life on earth? Too little and we're Mars, too much and we're Venus. Deniers arguing there's no CO2 effect is truly baffling.
Anyway, Ron's arguments grow weaker and weaker. Hard to imagine anyone taking his comments seriously at this point but just in case, a response to each of his points above:
- The "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system" was in reference to large scale shifts between greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, not in reference to icehouse Earth's glacial cycles. See below for more on CO2 and deglaciation which is a different discussion.
-- Ron's two rebuttals are either gibberish or making points outside the scope of the paper. They are not rebuttals in any meaningful sense.
If anyone wants to see for themselves go to Ron's link below and the read the comment written by "nuclear_is_good" who calls Ron's so called rebuttal "strange," which it is:
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature
The comment makes a key point about CO2, "absence of the warming from CO2 the orbital effect + albedo feedbacks would most likely never be able to achieve large-scale deglaciation" In other words, for the umpteenth time, nobody is claiming CO2 is the only factor.
--- What's laughable about is deniers are trying to argue CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause, not an amplifier. If a person were to agree, on the previous page for example, that CO2 is playing a role in modern warming and that CO2 amplifies warming then the whole argument that CO2 is merely an effect of warming goes out the window.
---- The wikipedia article discusses ice ages going back millions of years. The Shakun paper discuses increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Talking about supervolcanoes etc. in other epochs is, once again, a different discussion.
----- The basic physics argument is reductio ad absurdium. If a person wants learn more about chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc. then they should read about it. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it isn’t well documented in the scientific literature.
-
10-23-2019, 07:56 PM #2361Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
exxon's own scientists saw this coming with eery accuracy over 30 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/o...sultPosition=1
-
10-23-2019, 09:10 PM #2362
-
10-23-2019, 10:55 PM #2363Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
You've been really showing off your cluelessness lately. Venus and Mars have about the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere, both ~95%. The difference is Venus has a much thicker atmosphere.
Anyway, Ron's arguments grow weaker and weaker. Hard to imagine anyone taking his comments seriously at this point but just in case, a response to each of his points above:
- The "CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system" was in reference to large scale shifts between greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, not in reference to icehouse Earth's glacial cycles. See below for more on CO2 and deglaciation which is a different discussion.
Also, if your guerilla comment is just for the shifts between greehouse and icehouse earth, then your Shakun paper has little relevance since it is only looking at one deglaciation cycle occurring during icehouse earth.
-- Ron's two rebuttals are either gibberish or making points outside the scope of the paper. They are not rebuttals in any meaningful sense.
If anyone wants to see for themselves go to Ron's link below and the read the comment written by "nuclear_is_good" who calls Ron's so called rebuttal "strange," which it is:
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature
The comment makes a key point about CO2, "absence of the warming from CO2 the orbital effect + albedo feedbacks would most likely never be able to achieve large-scale deglaciation" In other words, for the umpteenth time, nobody is claiming CO2 is the only factor.
--- What's laughable about is deniers are trying to argue CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause, not an amplifier. If a person were to agree, on the previous page for example, that CO2 is playing a role in modern warming and that CO2 amplifies warming then the whole argument that CO2 is merely an effect of warming goes out the window.
---- The wikipedia article discusses ice ages going back millions of years. The Shakun paper discuses increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Talking about supervolcanoes etc. in other epochs is, once again, a different discussion.
----- The basic physics argument is reductio ad absurdium. If a person wants learn more about chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc. then they should read about it. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it isn’t well documented in the scientific literature.
Your theory doesn't make any sense on its own. In order for the oceans and and rocks to start absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it, the temperature must start to cool. This goes back to my basic physics point, which is entirely valid. In order for the warming caused by CO2 to be reversed, there must be a cooling force larger than the warming force of CO2. I'd like to see your sources for how this "invigorated moisture and precipitation" can provide a great enough forcing to stop the warming from CO2.
-
10-23-2019, 11:02 PM #2364Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-23-2019, 11:14 PM #2365
- Wow Ron really is a moron. Thick versus thin is exactly the point. Mars has a thin atmosphere where almost all the carbon dioxide CO2 is stored in the planet. Then we have Venus which has a really thick atmosphere meaning most of the CO2 or carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and then we have Earth in the middle.
Earth is often referred to as the Goldilocks planet not too hot not too cold just right. We have just the right amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to create an environment that is suitable for biological life.
-- I brought up the Shakun paper in response to Ron's chart, not the other way around. The discussion was originally about how the earth operates in two different climate modes, greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, until TGRs very own idiot child Ron tried to change the subject.
--- In the context of Ron's chart the Shakun paper demonstrates how 90-93% of the warming during the last deglaciation occurred in response to CO2 increases.
---- Once again, Ron changed the subject from greenhouse earth and icehouse earth to deglaciation cycles. Just go back to page 94/95 of this thread and see for yourself how Skicouger's chart showed time scales of millions of years and then Ron argued against the point with a 400K/yr chart.
----- Ron's so called "cooling force" isn't a force per se in the physics sense like gravity. That's just dumb. It's a process. There are different processes that help the climate regulate itself i.e, chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc.
------ Speaking of physics, Ron's idiotic argument that it's "other factors and interactions" and not CO2 is contradicted by physics, empirical laboratory evidence, and direct satellite observation of infrared spectra radiated downward from the atmosphere.
-
10-23-2019, 11:25 PM #2366
Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...
Is the guerrilla in the system Che Guevara? Just wondering. And isn't he dead?
-
10-23-2019, 11:39 PM #2367
-
10-24-2019, 11:15 AM #2368Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Wow, you are really doubling down on the stupid. Do you understand what an atmosphere is? 95% of Mars' atmosphere is CO2. That atmospheric CO2 is not stored "in the planet."
-- I brought up the Shakun paper in response to Ron's chart, not the other way around. The discussion was originally about how the earth operates in two different climate modes, greenhouse Earth and icehouse Earth, until TGRs very own idiot child Ron tried to change the subject.
--- In the context of Ron's chart the Shakun paper demonstrates how 90-93% of the warming during the last deglaciation occurred in response to CO2 increases.
---- Once again, Ron changed the subject from greenhouse earth and icehouse earth to deglaciation cycles. Just go back to page 94/95 of this thread and see for yourself how Skicouger's chart showed time scales of millions of years and then Ron argued against the point with a 400K/yr chart.
----- Ron's so called "cooling force" isn't a force per se in the physics sense like gravity. That's just dumb. It's a process. There are different processes that help the climate regulate itself i.e, chemical weathering and CO2 solubility in ocean water etc.
"Radiative forcing or climate forcing is the difference between insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.[1] The influences that cause changes to the Earth's climate system altering Earth's radiative equilibrium, forcing temperatures to rise or fall, are called climate forcings.[2] Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space. This net gain of energy will cause warming. Conversely, negative radiative forcing means that Earth loses more energy to space than it receives from the sun, which produces cooling."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
------ Speaking of physics, Ron's idiotic argument that it's "other factors and interactions" and not CO2 is contradicted by physics, empirical laboratory evidence, and direct satellite observation of infrared spectra radiated downward from the atmosphere.
-
10-24-2019, 11:22 AM #2369Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
10-24-2019, 11:35 AM #2370
- Ron, do you even read your wikipedia links? Last time your link talked about chemical weathering and CO2 which you claimed you couldn't find anything on Google. This time your link states the largest radiative forcing components are greenhouse gasses, which you are using as evidence that it's not greenhouse gasses. Your own source disagrees with you! They even presented a chart. The chart is even titled "Radiative-forcing components"
The point you're missing is it's the different processes that allow the climate to regulate greenhouse gases, not some physics force. Forcings does not mean force in the way you are using the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...e-forcings.svg
-- As far as Mars vs Venus goes, in this case the amount matters more than the percentage per se. 95% of a small amount of something is still a small amount. How is that not obvious?
-- Anyway, the answer to rest of your questions about Paleo climate are answered in this helpful video for deniers:
-
10-24-2019, 12:15 PM #2371
-
10-24-2019, 02:32 PM #2372Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Do you even read the caption on your chart? The chart is for year 2005 alone. Those forces are not constant throughout time.
I'm not sure what link you are referring to regarding chemical weathering and CO2, but it was your "invigorated moisture and precipitation" theory that I couldn't find anything on with google, and for which I'm still waiting for you present some information on.
I am using the "forcing" term correctly. The chart you highlighted demonstrates it clearly. It shows the influence of several radiative forces resulting from various processes.
-- As far as Mars vs Venus goes, in this case the amount matters more than the percentage per se. 95% of a small amount of something is still a small amount. How is that not obvious?
-- Anyway, the answer to rest of your questions about Paleo climate are answered in this helpful video for deniers:
-
10-24-2019, 02:34 PM #2373I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
10-24-2019, 02:50 PM #2374
You guys still arguing with that bot?
-
10-24-2019, 03:15 PM #2375
- Does Ron believe there's no greenhouse effect at all? He claims his chart is for year 2005 alone and forcings are not constant throughout time, which is true, but the greenhouse effect is still the most dominant climate forcing throughout time.
-- "invigorated moisture and precipitation" just means the Earth's total rainfall goes up and therefore the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere increases, decreasing the greenhouse effect. That's taken directly from Ron's wikipedia article.
--- Ron didn't/doesn't understand how greenhouse gasses are stored in soil but the chemistry is simple: H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3 (soil), H2CO3 + CaSiO3 -> CaCO3 + SiO2 +H2O
---- On the previous page Ron wrote "Some cooling force greater than the warming force provided by CO2 had to occur to stop the warming. Basic physics." In reality it's natural processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere which then makes it possible for the planet to cool down. There are other factors too, but those factors are not a so called "cooling force" that somehow invalidates the greenhouse effect of CO2. Ron did correctly use the term "forcings" the second time around when he cited wikipedia but the first time around he got it wrong.
------ When comparing Venus, Mars, and the Earth you just calculate emissiviity and solar intensity (W/m*m) of each planet. The math is straightforward, and corresponds with observations. The greenhouse effect on Venus is primarily caused by CO2. Ron's argument that there's no greenhouse effect on Venus and instead it's the extreme amount of pressure is another wattsupwiththat slight of hand.
------ The video does explains the graph. The video makes the point that deniers engage in: 1) Cherry Picking 2) Over Simplification, and 3) Jumping to Conclusions. Ron's graph is an Over Simplification. I used CO2 is the guerrilla in the climate system as a metaphor while the video uses an angry beast as metaphor. There were also examples provided on page 95 and 97 of this thread.
Bookmarks