It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'No Sun link' to climate change

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Im about to give up on replying to you. You don't discuss. You deflect and spin, dance a little further. You disagree with my calculation. Explain to me how its not applicable? Its not a precise measurement, but it still illustrates the point. But I think your goal was to attempt to invalidate my argument if I could not do the mathematical equations to support it, since they involve an above average level of mathematics.

But, rather than go to all that trouble...lets take a different angle. You stated 9-26% of GW is from carbon. (Ever wonder why that is such a large variable? thats because the science behind it is built on guesswork and inference!) Total warming vs average is .4C, but I'll give you the .7C vs the 1860 temp, nonetheless. We can skew it your way, it won't matter. So, in 150 years, carbon has increased the temperature of the earth 0.063 - 0.182C, for an average of .00042 - .00121C a year! Those numbers are so low as to be statistically irrelevant, once you figure in variability factors, such as volcanic activity and meteorological influences. Happy now? I took your numbers, for ALL CARBON...not even just man made...and showed how silly it all is. Would you like me to do out the math for just the man made carbon? It will just show that we have a trace effect at best.

What does this tell us? It tells us that environmental responsibility is always a good idea. Im huge proponent of cleaning up our water. Water pollution is a hard fact. Notice no one debates THAT one. The hard science behind it is why. What do the small rise in carbon levels tell us? That we should stabilize our deforestation, primarily in areas where it is out of control (amazon, etc) and we should not put excess of any chemical into the environment. Thats not the same as severely handicapping ourselves and wasting billions of dollars that belong in taxpayers wallets to fight a phantom. If youre really worried about petroleum-related pollution, take up recycling causes. Advocate glass bottles. Something constructive.




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
The entire population of Germany wasn't insane under Hitler, they just believed his ravings. Im speaking of leaders, not followers.


Can we just apply Godwin's law at this point?

So far we have Gore, manbearpig, socialists, and now nazis.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Also, about the stupid PPB arguement..yes, i know what that means. Thats another personal attack in a way, because Ive shown enough familiarity with science for you to assume I know what that means, as well as the fact that I used it in a statement accurately. You are just twisting things again.

Hallelujah, we can measure down to parts per billion. YOU DO REALIZE THAT WE ARE NOT MEASURING EVERY PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE?? We measure SAMPLES. If you took your samples from major urban areas, you'd get a high number. If you took them from the middle of the Amazon, you'd get another. If you took them at different altitudes, you'd get a different number. MEANING THAT YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AN ABSOLUTE QUANTITY....because all measurement locations are going to reflect different numbers. Do you have any idea of the processes involved, or do you just parrot facts?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


so far we have you nit-picking and QUOTEMINING instead of taking the examples in context. You are familiar with the concept of using literary devices such as metaphors, similes, hyperbole, etc to illustrate a point?? Thats like 9th grade english. But its sure a good way to not address the data, because you can't refute it.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Im about to give up on replying to you. You don't discuss. You deflect and spin, dance a little further. You disagree with my calculation. Explain to me how its not applicable? Its not a precise measurement, but it still illustrates the point. But I think your goal was to attempt to invalidate my argument if I could not do the mathematical equations to support it, since they involve an above average level of mathematics.


Ok, firstly, the 3-8% is for the human contribution to the greenhouse effect. Thus, multiplying it against a supposed increase in global temperature tells us nothing.

If you really want to use the % figures usefully, multiply it against the warming provided by the total greenhouse effect. That would be more informative.


But, rather than go to all that trouble...lets take a different angle. You stated 9-26% of GW is from carbon. (Ever wonder why that is such a large variable? thats because the science behind it is built on guesswork and inference!)


It's not actually, it's actually a consequence of the overlapping longwave absorption of the different atmospheric constituents that can absorb IR. In a clear cloudless sky, it's up at around 26%. For a cloudy sky, due to overlap, it can fall to about 9%. Thus, over the earth it ranges between around 9% up to about 26%.


Total warming vs average is .4C, but I'll give you the .7C vs the 1860 temp, nonetheless. We can skew it your way, it won't matter.


That's not a skewing. That's the correct way to do it. I'm assessing the contribution of increasing CO2 since the 1800s, thus the warming since the 1800s is the relevant figure. But you still can't apply this calculation and get a meaningful outcome.

The 0.4'C is the anomaly against the reference period for that data, with the reference period being only a short period (about 30 years?) of the 150 years data.


So, in 150 years, carbon has increased the temperature of the earth 0.063 - 0.182C, for an average of .00042 - .00121C a year! Those numbers are so low as to be statistically irrelevant, once you figure in variability factors, such as volcanic activity and meteorological influences. Happy now?


Well, yeah, I had a few giggles. This calculation means nothing. The precentage is related to the greenhouse effect, not the surface temp anomaly since 1860.


I took your numbers, for ALL CARBON...not even just man made...and showed how silly it all is. Would you like me to do out the math for just the man made carbon? It will just show that we have a trace effect at best.


It's not actually all carbon, just CO2. CH4 is not included.


What does this tell us? It tells us that environmental responsibility is always a good idea.


I'm not sure it does tell us that. But I agree with the inference, although it is a non-sequitor.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
You are familiar with the concept of using literary devices such as metaphors, similes, hyperbole, etc to illustrate a point?? Thats like 9th grade english. But its sure a good way to not address the data, because you can't refute it.


Oh come on, don't be so noughty. I just like to have a bit of fun when on teh intertubz. I get bored easily otherwise.

I've refuted the 'data' in the post above.


Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by melatonin
 


Also, about the stupid PPB arguement..yes, i know what that means. Thats another personal attack in a way, because Ive shown enough familiarity with science for you to assume I know what that means, as well as the fact that I used it in a statement accurately. You are just twisting things again.


OK, I'm not sure you have, but if it makes you feel better I'll play along.


Hallelujah, we can measure down to parts per billion. YOU DO REALIZE THAT WE ARE NOT MEASURING EVERY PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE?? We measure SAMPLES. If you took your samples from major urban areas, you'd get a high number. If you took them from the middle of the Amazon, you'd get another. If you took them at different altitudes, you'd get a different number. MEANING THAT YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AN ABSOLUTE QUANTITY....because all measurement locations are going to reflect different numbers. Do you have any idea of the processes involved, or do you just parrot facts?


Yeah, I do. We measure well-mixed areas of the atmosphere away from major cities. Why would we rely on measures in cities? That would be silly. We want measurments of well-mixed CO2. Measures from regions around the world a very similar to Mauna Loa.

We have numerous ways to measure CO2, from the AIRS satellite approach to numerous global stations measuring with gas chromatography and IR analysis.



[edit on 2-2-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Well, apparently I am not allowed to continue to discuss this, as my post was removed for being too correct. Censorship lives! Enjoy your delusions.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Well, apparently I am not allowed to continue to discuss this, as my post was removed for being too correct. Censorship lives! Enjoy your delusions.


Heh, of course.

I think you are allowed, but you need to maybe not call me a poopy-head and related stuff. Given I didn't read the post first, which I was disappointed about.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join