Re: Global warming and MARXISM
- From: ChrisT <micromutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:54:56 -0800
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 23:38:20 -0800 (PST), Fran <Fran.Beta@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:19 pm, Mr Right <Mr.I.Am.Ri...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 26, 6:59 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 26, 4:44 pm, Mr Right <Mr.I.Am.Ri...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 26, 6:30 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 26, 4:07 pm, Mr Right <Mr.I.Am.Ri...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:44 pm, SgtMinor <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spammer wrote:
On Dec 25, 12:45 am, SgtMinor <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Global warming is the favorite whipping boy of the oil companies and
their ignorant enablers. The latter all have anecdotal stories about
how today was the coldest day ever on this date, or today we had the
largest snowfall that grandpa ever saw, and to them that's proof that
global warming is a hoax. Match their anecdotes up against scientific
findings, and they'll go for the anecdotes every time.
So, by this we can gather that the colder it gets the warmer it is.
Anecdote vs science. Weather vs climate. Both poles have seen marked
increases in average temperatures. The icecaps are shrinking. The
warmer temperatures are allowing methane gases to escape. This
represents a positive feedback loop that will speed up the process.
But none of them will claim that our oceans aren't really sick and
getting more polluted from human waste every single day.-
Polution and the global warming hoax are comparing apples to bananas.
Yes, they're as far apart as cars and traffic accidents. Global warming
is said to be caused by pollution, specifically the discharge of
greenhouse gases. The oil company pushers, and their SUV driving
addicts do not want to talk about pollution.
The relationships between global warming, climate change, and pollution
are examples of a fundamental precept of the systems approach:
"everything is connected to everything else." The reductionism evident
in the study of a single event is akin to explaining the world based on
your casual examination of a single grain of sand.
If you think that global warming is caused by pollution, specifically
the discharge of greenhouse gases (specifically CO2), then I suggest
that you stop polluting by stopping breathing out. CO2 is plant food,
and has very little effect on the temperature.
<sigh> Look up "composition fallacy" and then "FACE study" + CO2
You might also consider, Mr Fallacy, that the CO2 humans breathe out
that adds to inventories of atnospheric CO2 does so only to the extent
that we harvest sequestered carbon by burning fossil fuels. Other than
that, it's all recycled.
And of course, the purpose of stabilising CO2 at something like pre-
industrial levels is precisely to make it possible to allow humans to
live well. The argument is not "all CO2 is evil" but "we must live
within an atmospheric CO2 and GHG budget by releasing GHGs only when
it's important to human wellbeing")
If you drink too much clean water, you die, but that doesn't mean that
drinking clean water isn't health promoting.
Again, l invite you to examine "composition fallacy".
Are you a hypocrite?
Well if he were a hypocrite, he would almost certainly deny it, so the
question is stupid.
Do you drive a car?
Note that water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
<sigh>
It's not. It's concentration in the mid latitudes is much greater than
that of CO2 so it does far more to underpin temperature than does CO2,
but that doesn't make it more powerful, just more prevalent (except in
the polar regions where it can fall to zero).
Since the increase in temperatures in polar regions and the loss of
sea ice extent are serious concerns in their own right, one can see
right away how fallacious this claim is.
Just as importantly ...
The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere has not increased
substantially since 1800, so water vapour is largely irrelevant. I say
largely irrelevant because increasing CO2, by raising temperatures,
has led to slightly increased humidity, and this has in turn become
part of a positive feedback loop, but again. it's the elevated CO2
rather than water vapour, that is the X factor here.
The water cycle between the surface, the clouds and snowpack/ice is on
the whole pretty constant however.
think of it -- if you were buying a shop, would you be more interested
in the profits/losses or in the size of the float in the till?
Are you suggesting that water vapor is a pollutant?
You set up the strawman and then invite him to dance with it?
Pollution and AGW are two totally different things.
No they aren't, Climate change is an expression of the patterns of
human activity of which pollution is one measure.
Pollution actually
exists. AGW is imaginary
Yet you can't substantially mitigate pollution without doing pretty
much everything specified by GHG mitigation, so what's your point?
Fran- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere
Main article: Greenhouse effect
In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
water vapor
carbon dioxide
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
CFCs
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse
effect, the most important are:
water vapor, which contributes 36?70%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9?26%
methane, which contributes 4?9%
ozone, which contributes 3?7%-
This is the problem I pointed to above about your "just the facts"
assertion.
What are the proportions of each gas within the atmosphere? And where
is each distributed?
That's why relevant expertise in the interpretation of data is
important.
Fran- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Fran, I see that you subscribe to the school that says never admit you
are wrong, even when presented with indisputable proof that you are
wrong.
Well whatever school you went to failed to equip you with robust
powers of analysis.
When I went to school, a gas which contributed 36?70% to the
greenhouse effect would be regarded as a more powerful greenhouse gas
than one which contributed 9?26%
You can't see that the concentration of the greenhouse gases being
compared is a relevant consideration?
If it turned out that the greenhouse gas contributing 9-26% was at
1/11th the concentration of the one contributing 36-70% wouldn't that
make the former roughly three times as powerful as the latter?
Especially when as your own proferred source attests:
|||
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more
water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic
principles indicate that increasing water vapor concentrations in
warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic
greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity.
Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided
by greenhouse gases such as CO2. This feedback effect is reproduced in
current state-of-the-art climate models.[24][25]
|||
And when as again your source attests, the residence time of water
vapour is nine days (rather than the 100+ years in which the bulk of
CO2 remains)
And if the relative concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere
was moving in favour of the former, wouldn't that be a thing of far
greater significance that the simple relative contribution at any
given point?
I stand by my statement that water vapor is a far more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2
Of course you do, because you prefer to stand by specious arguments
when they suit your bloodyminded commitment to the polluters' cause.
Fran
So you are saying Boy les laws of gases no longer applies ?
"Each gas occupies a space as though it and it alone occupies that
space" Look it up and introduce your own new theory for scientific
review and be sure to post all the new mathematical formulas
supporting your theory since it will change the way gases are and have
been successfully calculated for some time now.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Top ten lies about Iraq
- Next by Date: Re: Why Bush isn't in jail
- Previous by thread: Re: Global warming and MARXISM
- Next by thread: Why the difference?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
