Co2 level put into perspective

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by dbldrew, Jan 20, 2016.

  1. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if we use a fuel gauge to represent the level of Co2 in our atmosphere. Where F is the highest level. and E is the lowest level in history the needle represents the current level..

    Gas-Gauge.jpg

    The AGW crowd are screaming that your gas tank is about to overflow..
     
  2. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is perhaps the most terrible, ill-informed analogy I've seen to describe this so far. For an another terrible analogy from the other side, suppose for a moment that the fuel gauge were your blood supply, and the needle were pointing to the amount of uranium it contains.

    The AGW crowd is not screaming about overflow. They are screaming about dangerous levels. So, though also horrible, the uranium example is at least closer to the actual debate than the gasoline example is. The anti-AGW crowd using these examples is trying to pretend that physics doesn't exist. CO2 has a refraction index. It is a greenhouse gas.

    It does not have to make up a large chunk of the atmosphere in order to have a significant effect. Anyone who pretends that it does is either scientifically illiterate or lying.
     
  3. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why because its based on facts? the average CO2 through the measurable history of our planet is over 2000 ppm, the highest level was 7000ppm, it was 3000-5000ppm DURING AN ICE AGE. It helps put into perspective how absurd the GW hypothesis is.

    Co2 just isnt a very good greenhouse gas.. which is why with levels of 3000-5000ppm the earth was stuck in an ice age for several millions of years! Yeah Co2 is really driving climate.. But I guess your right if we go up another 50ppm the world will end..
     
  4. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is based on a straw man, as I have already shown.

    I'd ask for your source (which is absent, because of course it is), but you've already started charging at another straw man. Anyone who thinks that CO2 is the only factor in climate change, throughout the entirety of earth's history, hasn't the slightest clue what AGW claims.

    I don't even know how to begin to start counting the logical fallacies being used here. CO2 is one of the major greenhouse gases. Literally no scientist refutes this, even the AGW denialists. You can go to a bookstore or science shop and get a little kit to test it for yourself.

    Going for straw man number 3 I see.
     
  5. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What's absurd is you thinking you've spotted something that 10,000 climate scientists have missed.

    But think about this: What level of CO2 did humans evolve for?

    When talking about CO2 levels in the thousands ppm, you're talking about the earth at least 500 million years ago. At that point, all life was still in the ocean. Vertebrates didn't even evolve until 530 million years ago. There were no plants on land. Animals were only beginning to briefly explore the land.

    So yes, life did fine -- if you had gills.

    We would not do well in a world with CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, because that's not what we're evolved for. Life might go on -- but we might not. And we might not like the world even if we did.
     
  6. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

    All I did was post a representation of the current Co2 level based on history. How is that creating a strawman?


    all you have to do is google 7000ppm co2 and there are tons of sources.. here is a random one that has a nice chart for you..
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    and here is the chart if you dont want to google it..
    image277.gif


    I never said it wasn't a greenhouse gas I just said it wasn't a very efficient greenhouse gas. And it isnt. water vapor is a very efficient greenhouse gas.. co2? not so much..
     
  7. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Your argument was based on the notion of CO2 overflow rather than danger levels. No one is actually saying anything about overflow. No one is concerned about the idea that CO2 might one day compose 100% of our atmosphere.

    The reasons were stated in the last post. No one is claiming that the PPMs are in danger of rising to the point where C02 will fill up our atmosphere. No one is saying that CO2 is the only climate factor, much less that it has always been the only climate factor throughout history. Your arguments treating these issues as if they having anything to do with AGW are straw men.

    No AGW scientist debates the efficiency of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. None. Anyone who has spent the slightest bit of effort researching the topic knows why water vapor isn't that much of a concern when it comes to human involvement and influence. CO2 is another story.
     
  8. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thats not a strawman it was just an analogy. overflowing your gas tank is dangerous. saying your in danger of overflowing your gas tank when it is on empty would be silly. Just like talking about the dangers of CO2 levels being to high and heating the planet when the CO2 level is actually at a all time low is just as silly.

    I never made the claim that anyone was worried that the CO2 levels will fill our atmosphere. So you arguing that point would be.. hmmmm a strawman argument..

    Actually yes they do. and the efficiency of water vapor is 60-80% of the greehouse effect.
    Regardless I wasnt talking about human involvement with water vapor (another strawman on your part) I just listed a efficient greenhous gas vs non-efficient greenhouse gas..
     
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the reasoning/argument on which it rests is a straw man. An abysmal one.

    All time low? :roflol:

    If "F" represents anything less than "Full", then we need to readjust the analogy.

    Name 1 scientist that debates the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Just 1 will do. They don't exist. It is another denialist boogeyman.

    And the efficiency doesn't matter when it comes to combating AGW. It is a denialist distraction.
     
  10. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How? please explain your because I have no idea why you think that a simple analogy is a strawman
    Yes in the whole history of the world yes the co2 is very very low.. (just look at the gas gauge posted above)
    F represents the highest level in recorded history.. I said that in the first post.. not sure why you are confused with that.
    Are you serous? WOW this is like 4th grade science here..
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php
    I guess the IPCC is why..
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/...water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

    It absolutely does matter. If the level raises to 1000ppm and Co2 is a very efficient greenhouse gas then there would be a lot of warming.. BUT because Co2 is NOT a efficient we can have 3000-7000ppm with very stable temp.
     
  11. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol no this was found by scientists

    Well the first primates 40-50 mil years ago had co2 levels around ~1200ppm or so
    The point is we can look at how high the Co2 levels where and how the earths temp was not much higher. Meaning Co2 is not a very efficient greenhouse gas so going up a 100ppm is not going to do anything.

    I read a while back that if we burn 100% of the oil coal and gas it will only raise the Co2 levels to 670ppm. (not even up to the earths average)..
     
  12. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The gas gauge is a farce, hence the criticisms. If you feel otherwise, define what "F" means on that gauge and I'll show you why your example is a farce.


    If F represented the highest level in recorded history, then your gauge is wildly inaccurate. Care to correct it? Didn't think so.

    Neither link provides what I asked for. Try again. Or don't. I suspect you'll opt fo the later.


    Any link to prove the later claim? Didn't think so.
     
  13. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    omg I cant believe you are so confused by a simple gas gauge that I already spelled out what it meant.
    F=7000ppm (the highest level in earths history)
    E=180ppm (the lowest level in earths history)
    the needle = 400ppm (the current level)
    you wanted a link about water vapors greenhouse effect.. thats what I linked..

    I posted a link to a graph that shows just that..
    7000ppm, 5000ppm, 3000ppm, 2000,ppm 1500ppm, 1200ppm, 700ppm, 500ppm all had a global tempature of 22degc HUGE swings of co2 and stable global temp.
     
  14. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ni, he asked for a link showing scientists *debating* water vapor's greenhouse effect. The point being that nobody disputed its effect, and it is already taken into account.

    Look, I'll try one more time to point out just some of the massive logic fails you're suffering from.

    "We've had much higher CO2 levels in the past, including during ice ages. Clearly CO2 doesn't cause warming."

    First off, CO2 DOES cause warming. That is, as you would say, 4th grade science. The effect is known and measurable.

    However, CO2 is just one of many factors that drive climate.

    Here's the problem for deniers: We know what those factors are.

    Historical warming and cooling cycles can be explained by these factors.

    In the very early earth, for instance, the sun was much younger and gave out much less heat. So earth was cold, despite very high CO2 levels. But those CO2 levels are credited with preventing the planet from turning into frozen iceball.

    The problem for deniers is that these factors cannot explain the current warming. They have been examined, and found to either not be active, or to not be a big enough effect, or to be working to COOL the planet.

    What DOES explain it is the rapid rise of human-caused greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

    Further, we can use isotope analysis to determine the source of these gasses. Guess what? It's humans. indeed, some of the most powerful greenhouse gasses, like halocarbons, have no natural source.

    Next, your assertion that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, and so can't be causing the problem.

    #1, it's not the only greenhouse gas. Humans are putting a bunch of them in the air.

    #2, its the biggest problem not because it's the strongest greenhouse gas, but because we're putting so darn much of it in the air. Halocarbons are much worse, but a million tons of CO2 will cause more warming than 100 tons of halocarbons.

    And that's what's happening. CO2 is the main driver because we're putting ginormous amounts of it into the atmosphere.

    Please tell me you understand these points, or else there is no point in proceeding with this thread.
     
  15. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that would be a very illogical question then. I said water vapor= efficient greenhouse gas. and Co2= inefficient greenhouse gas. and he is looking for a "debate"?

    strawman I never said Co2 dosent cause warming, I said it is a inefficient greenhouse gas
    agreed... never said it didnt. just said it doesn't do it very well..
    agreed but how are the politicians going to be able to tax those other factors?

    what current warming? The IPCC has found no warming over the last 19 years (even though those computer models predicted otherwise)
    the rapid raise in "human-caused" Co2 has caused no warming.. ok got it
    what problem? the doomsday scenarios that have yet to come true?
    not really. we can burn all fossil fuels and wont even be half way to the earths co2 average
    Co2 is only a main driver in global warming in computer models. History proves otherwise
    I understand that all through history there has been someone screaming in the middle of the town square "the end is nigh"
    looks like the tradition is living on..
     
  16. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the added 120 PPM that is always discussed, added since the industrial age, I've asked for two years in here and not one warmer can post up research to show the danger of that 120 PPM. One dude on here even asked me what the 120 was about. I couldn't believe it. The argument volume for 20 years and he asks what 120. Dude has a screw loose. Anyway, I'm all about the evidence and the lack there of with the amount of yelling and chirping about death and all. just someone on the warmer side can just post up the research that concludes that. It's be nice for once these warmers post factual information. Nice post by the way.
     
  17. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, we're done. All you can do is parrot discredited denier crap, and change the subject when I try to address your claims head on.

    Thankfully, the world is listening to the science, not you. We will handle this problem despite your intellectually disreputable games.
     
  18. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    nice.........Bye
     
  19. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What subject did I change? The subject was about how low our current co2 level is and how inefficient co2 is. I have stayed on that subject the entire time.
    And what specifically is discredited? the lack of warming over 19 years (from the IPCC)? or how low our current co2 is? do you not believe the 7000ppm or something?

    And thankfully you are right about "listening to the science" the supreme court listened to the science and stopped Obamas "war on fossil fuels"

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/
     
  20. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is plenty of research and predictions. But you wont find and warmer linking to them because if just shows how inaccurate the "science" really is. here is a few just for laughs..

    "In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring"

    "For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
    The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934"

    "n early 2004, the CRU’s Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,” Viner told The Guardian. Another “expert,” Adam Watson with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the paper that the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go. Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed"

    "In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008 ). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change...."

    " another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."

    " In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

    Its just one failed doomsday prediction after another. You wont get a warmer to link to any of them because it really discredits the future doomsday predictions.

    there are a bunch more you can read the whole article here..

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
     
  21. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks, I agree.

    So basically the idea is nothing but an idea. It has no validation in place to support the claim which is what I've said in here for two years. They don't seem to understand that if you wish to convince folks something is bad, on should have validated the claim first and present the data. crickets in here, crickets.
     
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The IPCC A1B scenario results in an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 350 ppm in 2000 to 700 ppm in 2100 which is a doubling (2X). The IPCC AR5 lists the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 from the GCM models to be 1.5 to 4.5 deg C with the most likely per the UN experts to be ~ 3 deg C. However more recent models show that the sensitivity is ~ 2 and based on real world data the sensitivity is 1.0 - 1.5. Based on the AR5 sensitivity and the doubling of CO2 from 2000 to 2100 the increase in temperature range would be 1.0 - 2.0 deg C. That meets the IPCC goal of less than a 2 deg C increase by 2100. The best global warming policy is to continuously monitor global warming but do nothing that will inhibit global economic growth. Assuming 4% global gdp annual growth the global wealth will have increased by ~ 30X by 2100. That wealth will result in the availability of the means to adapt to global warming issues from the 0.2 deg C per decade increase.
     
  23. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Co is cobalt.



     
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,786
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yikes, there's Cobalt in our atmosphere and in every breath we take ?? :omg:
     
  25. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oops, you posted the graph showing "Climate Science Level of Understanding In Denierstan" by mistake!

    - - - Updated - - -

    And how many of those previous environments supported human civilization?

    Another big ol' bucket of FAIL from the "let's all go live on Venus" crowd.
     

Share This Page