Three questions about global warming

Discussion in 'Science' started by bricklayer, Feb 17, 2017.

  1. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fun. So, instead of attempting to produce an argument that supports your assertion of positive knowledge and certainty of the limits of the natural cycle, your position is that the use of modeling is sufficient to not have to do this? Laughable.

    Think about it this way. The natural release of CO2 number is a guess. The number associated with the total output of Man is a guess, and the limit to which the natural cycle is capable of absorbing variation is a guess. I mean, at some point, you have to accept that all of this guessing is just guessing and that the product of the guessing is simple conjecture.

    What we know is this: The natural world both releases and sequesters carbon, in various forms, including CO2. Modeling may attempt to demonstrate this cyclic process, but the real numbers cannot be collected, are unlikely to become collectible in the near future, and the flip side of the conversation is that we likely are unable to fully demonstrate the process of natural sequestration. Obviously, the models are unable to predict this accurately, and based on the model outputs, the predictions of additional CO2 influence and forcing of temperature change have also proved unreliable.

    So, no, I don't assert that we are unable to measure, I assert our ability to extrapolate limited collection as a general rule is no prudent. I would assert then that the same number of measures for carbon trapping are also limited or at least too limited to make a generalization based on them.

    I then assert that knowing this, makes the advocacy of the limited value of these demonstrations to be disingenuous comprehensive knowledge about the system itself. I would caution, that most every scientist who have presented these models have said exactly what I have, and that even they do not pretend to believe that their model is authoritative.
     
  2. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course you are correct, to a point. As is true of any complex modeling situation, we can only measure and verify up to a certain point. That is contained in the very nature of the risk analysis and confidence indices that scientists the world over use prior to reaching their conclusions given their limitations. We apply those limitations all the time in the medical field and yet we routinely accept the best-guessed opinions of the doctors and biologists.

    Climatologists works in a field that is extremely complex and they routinely admit the limitations of their knowledge. And yet we have real world veracity from which they continually re-analyze and recalculate the models and the limits of their knowledge. They also have progressively advancing ability to measure outputs and variables and increasingly powerful computers capable of analyzing those billions of new data points.

    Admitting that we are limited in our ability to understand the climate is rational. Rejecting the findings of the overwhelming percentage of climatologists based on the fact that they rely, to some extent, on "guessing," is not.
     
  3. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Too much Too fast does not allow for adaptation and can be fatal.....try putting a plastic bag over your head.
    "Carbon dioxide makes up 390 ppm of the Earth's atmosphere. That's 0.039%. Increasing this to 3% is pretty significant. The OSHA's maximum safe level is 3% (30,000 ppm); lethal concentration (death in 30 minutes) is 10% (100,000 ppm)."
     
  4. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps the disconnect here is that you see my commentary as rejecting the findings. I don't, neither do those who produce them. What we do reject is the misuse of them. Knowing that there are assumptions and guesses just means that the summary conclusions cannot be authoritative, and unless you're an AGW advocate, no one is claiming otherwise.

    The observation about guessing means that conclusive projections are unreliable, and shouldn't then be used to base policy on. If you had to extrapolate or otherwise "develop" data for which you have no measurements, it's unreliable at best that the guess is accurate, or that it provides any authority from which to base policy.
     
  5. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK I'll check back in a million years or so and see if humans were successful in destroying all life on earth. I'm sure people are over hyping this and everything's going to be just fine.
     
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And to put a point on it, there is no estimation that moves us towards 3%. Is there?
     
  7. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is one a big number? One ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to a solid block of carbon of one cubic kilometre. That CO2 contains enough solid carbon to make a solid block one kilometre wide, one kilometre long and one kilometre thick. Is one a big number?
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quite possibly so....it does not matter regardless because if you are correct we have nothing to worry about. If not we cannot do anything about it and will be long dead before it actually gets bad.

    I'm personally more worried about methane and permafrost.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Not that I am aware of.
     
  9. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What about the super volcano under Yellowstone Park? It could blow and day and wipe out half the US. How are we supposed to decide what are the worst things we need to worry about?
     
  10. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Yellowstone Super volcano is an issue of geological time while the changes in atmospheric composition deal with generational possibility. While I completely understand the standard hyperbolic distraction tactic employed by most climate deniers I enjoy confusing them with logical thought, and it also makes them look like fools to anyone who uses rational thought.
     
  11. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should take that message to the Syrians.
     
  12. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see then geologic calamities can wipe out decades worth of taxing CO2 production in an instant. Interesting isn't it?
     
  13. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you again attempt hyperbolic distraction?

    This time with non existent taxation mixed with non existent calamities.

    Dude....I get it already, you got nothin'.
     
  14. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Plants can't grow without CO2 and so-called environmentalists want to tax industries that produce CO2 because that's where the money is.
     
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have A Nice Day:smile:
     
  16. Grugore

    Grugore Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I can answer the second question, sort of. A person generates 2.5 pounds of C02 every day, just from breathing. Multiply that by 7 billion humans. Then there is every other living thing on the planet. Probably amounts to several billion tons per year.
     
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bricklayer, what is causing the CO2 level to increase as it has to 400ppm?
     
  18. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think 4% of 1% = 0.04%
     

Share This Page