Not the only climate change chart you need to see...

[RickG]

I think it muddies the waters when there's a lot of money involved.

What is the source of the 22 billion dollar claim and just where is that much money going. I doubt much of it goes to research grants.

 

[PapaZoom]

What is the source of the 22 billion dollar claim and just where is that much money going. I doubt much of it goes to research grants.

You are probably right about that. But whenever money and politics are involved in something, folks should sit up and take notice. Something's not right about that. Not that that alone is enough to dismiss AGW claims outright. It isn't. But it does leave the impression that the snake oil salesmen are in town.

I'm heading up to my classroom for some prep work. Have a great day and I'll probably respond further tonight.

 

[PapaZoom]

not so convinced it's worth the time

 

[fargonic]

Co2 rise follows temperature rise. I know this has been a debatable issue and some scientists have created models that supposedly show otherwise.

PapaZoom, you should take a basic highschool level CHEMISTRY class. It's easy enough. You will learn about something called HENRY'S LAW. Basically when you heat a solution that contains dissolved gases, some of those gases come out of solution. So it is with water containing dissolved CO2.

This is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY basic high school level chemistry.

NOW, on top of that we ALSO know (have known for about 150 years or so) that CO2 ABSORBS IR (that's heat radiation). It means that it helps hold in more heat in the atmosphere.

Again, REALLY, REALLY basic stuff. Please take a basic science class.

No one who is following the issue of AGW can simply dismiss the fact that politics is heavily involved in this debate. So whenever I approach this topic, it's with that in mind.

But you have to know the FACTS before your "opinion" can take a role. And clearly if you don't understand basic high school level chemistry then you don't have all the facts necessary for YOU to draw a conclusion.

I suspect the rise has to do with a multitude of factors. It's not a simple "show me this chart" kind of answer. However, I'm convinced that Co2 is not the culprit. It may play a role, but it's an insignificant one.

You clearly don't even know basic chemistry so I'll assume your "opinion" on this has little to no value. No one says it's ONLY CO2, but CO2 is a big player. In fact almost all of the scientists (people who made it past high school chemistry and then went on to spend decades more of their lives LEARNING the science) would say you are wrong in your "assessment".

And that's probably because you don't understand the SCIENCE. So you think your opinion related to "politics" or "money" has some bearing.

You are wrong.

Sorry. Not every student gets and "A".

 

[The Cadet]

Co2 rise follows temperature rise. I know this has been a debatable issue and some scientists have created models that supposedly show otherwise.

Huh? The bolded segment here would be news to me; as far back as the 1970s, it was well-established that at the beginning of deglaciation events, CO2 lagged temperature. This is largely because, as Fargonic pointed out, as the oceans warm up, they outgas CO2, although AFAIK there are other factors involved. At no point was it not believed that during the start of deglaciations, CO2 lagged temperature.

However, the fact that CO2 rise can follow temperature rise does not mean that temperature rise cannot also follow CO2 rise. The positive feedback is well-understood: first, orbital forcing causes a slight warming, then the oceans warm up, releasing CO2, causing more warming. This is a significant point: the fact that orbital forcing is what starts the reaction off does not somehow invalidate the role of CO2 in the warming planet.

 

[PapaZoom]

PapaZoom, you should take a basic highschool level CHEMISTRY class. It's easy enough. You will learn about something called HENRY'S LAW. Basically when you heat a solution that contains dissolved gases, some of those gases come out of solution. So it is with water containing dissolved CO2.

This is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY basic high school level chemistry.

NOW, on top of that we ALSO know (have known for about 150 years or so) that CO2 ABSORBS IR (that's heat radiation). It means that it helps hold in more heat in the atmosphere.

Again, REALLY, REALLY basic stuff. Please take a basic science class.



But you have to know the FACTS before your "opinion" can take a role. And clearly if you don't understand basic high school level chemistry then you don't have all the facts necessary for YOU to draw a conclusion.



You clearly don't even know basic chemistry so I'll assume your "opinion" on this has little to no value. No one says it's ONLY CO2, but CO2 is a big player. In fact almost all of the scientists (people who made it past high school chemistry and then went on to spend decades more of their lives LEARNING the science) would say you are wrong in your "assessment".

And that's probably because you don't understand the SCIENCE. So you think your opinion related to "politics" or "money" has some bearing.

You are wrong.

Sorry. Not every student gets and "A".

Are you sure it's not really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, basic stuff?

Thank you for your generosity of spirit in your reply.

How about a Ph. D in Physics? He said this:
"CO2 can be driven by temperature changes."


Which is why I said, "I know this has been a debatable issue and some scientists have created models that supposedly show otherwise."

And it is debatable. We're debating it now. Except that you're resorting to using ad hominem.

Scientific American asks this question: "Why do some ice core samples seem to indicate CO2 spikes trailed increases in global temperature?" It then gives an answer in the article that follows the question. So it's not like I made up what I said. Other scientists interpret the ice core samples differently.

“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

I don't want to be accused of quote mining, so I won't bother trying to defend what I said any further. Except to say that as I've been reading up on the AGW debate over the years, I run into the claim that co2 rises follow temperature rises. Not from blogs, but from scientific literature or if a blog, written by a scientist in the field.

Maybe those guys didn't take chemistry either. That might explain it.

 

[[serious]]

How about a Ph. D in Physics? He said this:
"CO2 can be driven by temperature changes."

I'm not sure i see the problem there. When something is part of a positive feedback loop, it can be both a cause and an effect depending on the situation. For example, heat causes fire and fire causes heat. Niether side of that would mean arson doesn't exist.

In this case, we know we are releasing previously sequestered carbon by burning fossil fuels. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thus, we know we are doing something that is contributing to warming.

If we were instead not producing CO2 but rather methane only, we might still see a rise in CO2 as a secondary effect of the methane forced warming. If there were increasing solar irradiance, both CO2 and methane might be due to nonhuman causes. But since we know we are producing CO2, we know the origin of that CO2 and thus the cause of the effects of that CO2

 

[fargonic]

Are you sure it's not really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, basic stuff?

Yup. We taught it in Freshman chem when I was teaching, and I've gone over it with high school kids when I was doing chem tutoring.

Which is why I said, "I know this has been a debatable issue and some scientists have created models that supposedly show otherwise."

NEITHER point is "debatable". CO2 can do BOTH. Again, basic intro chemistry and science we've know about for 150 years.

And it is debatable. We're debating it now. Except that you're resorting to using ad hominem.

No, I'm attempting to point out how little you know about the basics of the topic. If you are insulted that is not my problem. If you don't know basic high school chemistry you are simply wrong if you think this point is 'debatable'.

Scientific American asks this question: "Why do some ice core samples seem to indicate CO2 spikes trailed increases in global temperature?" It then gives an answer in the article that follows the question. So it's not like I made up what I said. Other scientists interpret the ice core samples differently.

Again, we teach Henry's Law to HIGH SCHOOL kids. If it is "news" to you that is good that you can learn about it, but it isn't in any way "controversial".

Maybe those guys didn't take chemistry either. That might explain it.

Nope, it's your failure to know the basics of chemistry that makes you think this is some "deeply controversial" topic. I'm sorry to break it to you. If you don't know the basics of the science all this stuff will seem very confusing and amazing to you.

It's good that you can take a science class at a local college if you want to learn this stuff. But you need to really catch up.

 

[The Cadet]

How about a Ph. D in Physics? He said this:
"CO2 can be driven by temperature changes."

Okay, let me see if I can simplify this...

Fire can cause heat. Does this mean heat cannot cause fire? Because if so, why the need for stone fireplaces? Couldn't we just start the fire anywhere? It causes heat, so heat couldn't cause fire, therefore there's no way for it to spread!

CO2 can be driven by temperature changes. During past deglaciations, the standard, currently-accepted model is that CO2 rise was first driven by warming caused by orbital forcing. What followed was a typical positive feedback loop: more CO2 in the atmosphere made the earth warmer, which caused the oceans to release more CO2, making the earth warming. Look, this really isn't that hard to understand. X -> Y does not imply Y !-> X. It's entirely possible (indeed, it is the current standard model) that CO2 lagged temperature after past deglaciations, and that CO2 is responsible for much of past warming.

 

[JacksBratt]

Okay, let me see if I can simplify this...

Fire can cause heat. Does this mean heat cannot cause fire? Because if so, why the need for stone fireplaces? Couldn't we just start the fire anywhere? It causes heat, so heat couldn't cause fire, therefore there's no way for it to spread!

CO2 can be driven by temperature changes. During past deglaciations, the standard, currently-accepted model is that CO2 rise was first driven by warming caused by orbital forcing. What followed was a typical positive feedback loop: more CO2 in the atmosphere made the earth warmer, which caused the oceans to release more CO2, making the earth warming. Look, this really isn't that hard to understand. X -> Y does not imply Y !-> X. It's entirely possible (indeed, it is the current standard model) that CO2 lagged temperature after past deglaciations, and that CO2 is responsible for much of past warming.

So, in affect, this can be a viscous cycle. Man may have nothing to do with it. We may add a wee bit, but, in the grand scheme of things, the earth is just self combusting.......

That is if I was one bit worried about the affect we have on the climate as far as CO2 is concerned.

 

[fargonic]

So, in affect, this can be a viscous cycle. Man may have nothing to do with it. We may add a wee bit, but, in the grand scheme of things, the earth is just self combusting.......

Nope. Man clearly has had a significant impact on climate over the last 60 or so years.

CO2 can both lead and lag. But it requires more than a junior high "science" understanding. It requires high school level science to understand how something can do both!

That is if I was one bit worried about the affect we have on the climate as far as CO2 is concerned.

You might start with learning the difference between "affect" and "effect". No offense. But as to CO2 it is highly unlikely you know anymore about it than you do basic English grammar and syntax.

 

[The Cadet]

So, in affect, this can be a viscous cycle. Man may have nothing to do with it.

No, actually, we can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have ways of determining how much of it comes from human sources, particularly fossil fuels. It's more than half. This, despite all the positive feedbacks that release more CO2 and CH4. So man definitely has something to do with it. And all that carbon previously stuck in oil, coal, and the like? It wasn't a part of the cycle for millions of years. It's being reintroduced now, and the consequences could be quite dire.

 

[JacksBratt]

You might start with learning the difference between "affect" and "effect". No offense. But as to CO2 it is highly unlikely you know anymore about it than you do basic English grammar and syntax.

Because, clearly, I'm being graded for grammer and speling by someone I don't know.
Did you know that "Ginormous" is now a word and "nother" is commonly used by professionals on National television?
You know? Like, "that's a whole nother story"? Ya, really. And now it's "fishes" not "fish" for more than one...

Seriously, I could care less right now about "affect" or "effect" or the whole nother hoax of "global warming" panic.
I do all I can to be a good steward of the environment. Cannot do much more. And, unless you have an alternative for fossil fuels that the economy can handle..... were just going to plug along until the end of this age. Which will come long before we have to worry about the panic of "climate change"


Oh ya, I started a sentence with "because"....minus 5 marks?

 

[lasthero]

Seriously, I could care less right now about "affect" or "effect

Couldn't.

You couldn't care less.

 

[fargonic]

Because, clearly, I'm being graded for grammer and speling by someone I don't know.

Facts are facts. The sooner you learn this the quicker you will be able to come up to speed on technical topics like climate change!

Seriously, I could care less right now about "affect" or "effect"

As another poster noted, it's "I couldn't care less". What you said indicates that you do care and that you could care less.

THIS is why it is important to follow technical details when speaking!

or the whole nother hoax of "global warming" panic.

But if you don't even have a grasp on your basic language skills why would anyone think you have a grasp on highly technical topics like this?

Perhaps I am being pedantic, but you really need to follow details in discussions like this.

I do all I can to be a good steward of the environment. Cannot do much more.

And that is laudable! Why do you do it? Probably because you know that pollution can harm your environment! The same goes with burning excess fossil fuels!

And, unless you have an alternative for fossil fuels that the economy can handle..... were just going to plug along until the end of this age.

There are ways to generate electricity without fossil fuels. It will be hard and we will likely have to do with less (anathema to many people), but there is nuclear, there is solar, there are a whole host of alternative energy sources. Some will be more expensive and less efficient, but part of that is because our energy infrastructure has been set up to be fossil fuel friendly. It doesn't have to be that way.

Oh ya, I started a sentence with "because"....minus 5 marks?

I'll level with you: people would probably listen to your fact-free diatribes about science you clearly don't really understand if you didn't also write like a 4th grader. But your general lack of skill with your basic language indicates a deeper failure to appreciate technical topics in general. If you can't communicate even simple concepts without messing them up, why would anyone think you understand chemistry and physics that some have dedicated their lives to studying?

 

[fargonic]

No, actually, we can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have ways of determining how much of it comes from human sources, particularly fossil fuels. It's more than half. This, despite all the positive feedbacks that release more CO2 and CH4. So man definitely has something to do with it. And all that carbon previously stuck in oil, coal, and the like? It wasn't a part of the cycle for millions of years. It's being reintroduced now, and the consequences could be quite dire.

What's even more interesting is the stable isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2. Prior to about the middle of the 19th century the ratio of 13-C to 12-C was stable for about 10,000 years. Then suddenly in the middle of the 19th century when humans started pumping industrial levels of CO2 into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels the isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 shifted EXACTLY AS ONE WOULD PREDICT to lighter C isotopes!

Fossil fuels made up of photosynthetic plant remains tend to fractionate lighter carbon isotopes.

It's like science really works! It makes predictions and those predictions can be tested and found to be accurate!

 

[JacksBratt]

Facts are facts. The sooner you learn this the quicker you will be able to come up to speed on technical topics like climate change!

Yes, because knowing the difference between "affect" and "effect" means you are "right" in everything else and not knowing the difference ( or, more accurate, not caring) means your wrong. I get it.

When people start critiquing me for my grammar...... I believe that I have said something that is truthful but contradicts their view. I also tend to take what they said with a grain of salt

 

[fargonic]

Yes, because knowing the difference between "affect" and "effect" means you are "right" in everything else and not knowing the difference ( or, more accurate, not caring) means your wrong. I get it.

No, but it explains how you have arrived at your "opinion" of the science of AGW. It shows a lack of interest in detail.

AGW is a technical topic. Clearly much of the science is stuff you have no experience of. And, like your linguistic skills, it is something you clearly don't have much interest in learning.

BUT you are willing to put it out there even though it is incorrect.

When people start critiquing me for my grammar...... I believe that I have said something that is truthful but contradicts their view. I also tend to take what they said with a grain of salt

Well, Jack, I have a PhD in geology and over 20 years of work experience in chemistry R&D so if you have a technical question about AGW I'm relatively certain I can answer it for you.

I doubt you will have anything particularly difficult to answer. It will likely be more difficult for you to understand the reply. And I mean no offense in that. I'm certain that whatever it is you do for a living you do quite well and I'm certain I couldn't do it as well as you do.

But in cases of science I think I can do this better.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, because knowing the difference between "affect" and "effect" means you are "right" in everything else and not knowing the difference ( or, more accurate, not caring) means your wrong. I get it.

When people start critiquing me for my grammar...... I believe that I have said something that is truthful but contradicts their view. I also tend to take what they said with a grain of salt

Cadet didn't critique your grammer at all, but you completely ignored #192.

 

[JacksBratt]

No, but it explains how you have arrived at your "opinion" of the science of AGW. It shows a lack of interest in detail.

AGW is a technical topic. Clearly much of the science is stuff you have no experience of. And, like your linguistic skills, it is something you clearly don't have much interest in learning.

BUT you are willing to put it out there even though it is incorrect.

Well, Jack, I have a PhD in geology and over 20 years of work experience in chemistry R&D so if you have a technical question about AGW I'm relatively certain I can answer it for you.

I doubt you will have anything particularly difficult to answer. It will likely be more difficult for you to understand the reply. And I mean no offense in that. I'm certain that whatever it is you do for a living you do quite well and I'm certain I couldn't do it as well as you do.

But in cases of science I think I can do this better.

I am pretty sure that most people here have arrived at their "opinion" of the "science" of AGW.

It's not lack of interest in detail. It's difference of opinion of what the data shows. It's a different view, theory, belief, interpretation.... whatever.

Whether I use "affect" or "effect" has nothing to do with it. Your alphabet after your name means nothing to me. What if the curriculum you have been taught is in error. Garbage in..... garbage out, so they say. If all the students are taught that "A" is the only truth and it turns out to be that "B" is the truth, then the students of theory "A" are regurgitating false information.
Only time will tell. There are people with accreditation similar or better than yours that would disagree with you. Truth is not determined by democracy.
Also, knowledge of grammar is not a prerequisite for being correct or incorrect in any discipline...... except when written for the sake of perfection in writing.