To lessen your confusion I will define my terms. Nominal value is 280 or 380 ppm. Percent is relative value expressed as pph. So, for example, in going from 280 to 380ppm, the increase relative to the initial value is (380-280)/280. If you want to express that increase as pph it becomes the dimensionless number 40 to one significant figure, and you may attach the label 'percent' to that number if you like. There. does that help?
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I have already pointed out that in many living systems, going from 280 ppm to 380 ppm would kill you twice as fast, regardless of some trivial percent change equation. In the case of the earth, that sustained ppm difference in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could mean a tiny 1 degree Celcius increase in MGT (Mean Global Temperature). Enough to completely change the repercussions that already under way: the landscape of the entire earth, extinctions, health issues to all living creatures in the food chain, etc. What is much worse, it puts us dangerously close if not on a path to runaway irreversible increases well beyond that 1 degree Celcius.
So your argument is that the earth will reach critical irreversible MGTs with catastrophic effects in 200 years instead of 100?
So your argument is that the earth will reach critical irreversible MGTs with catastrophic effects in 200 years instead of 100?
Last edited:
Futurecurrents, soon this may all be a mute point. Scroll to the bottom. These guys will have to go back to debating whether the Earth is flat and that the Sun goes around the Earth and house arresting Galileo:
Star Is Born
Inside the Quest for Fusion, Clean Energy’s Holy Grail
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-want-you-to-get-your-own-power.292256/page-4
Star Is Born
Inside the Quest for Fusion, Clean Energy’s Holy Grail
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-want-you-to-get-your-own-power.292256/page-4
It must be Halloween and the above post some twisted form of ET P&R trick or treating.
Seriously? You are comparing a poison like Cyanide to beneficial gas like CO2 which helps plants grow. High parts per million of Cyanide kills things therefore high ppm of CO2 is spooky and evil.
This must get the award for the most absurd banter of the month.
Last edited:
wow is that a pile of agw speculative detritus.
you keep quoting that propaganda
and I keep having to quote this part back to you...
its modeling speculation... not science.
"This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
you keep quoting that propaganda
and I keep having to quote this part back to you...
its modeling speculation... not science.
"This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Wrong again dumbass!
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Last edited:
Looks like the current talks are not going far enough. Well, get ready for a likely 1.5 Celsius MGT because I don't see how we have a fusion reactor generating electricity any time soon enough:
"Pledges from dozens of nations to rein in carbon emissions aren’t enough so far to avoid catastrophic climate change, according to four European research centers.
Plans submitted by China, the U.S., the European Union and other top polluters won’t limit global warming to the 2-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) threshold that scientists have recommended, the Climate Action Tracker coalition said in a report Wednesday.
Diplomats are meeting in Bonn this week to continue working on the landmark climate-change deal that more than 190 nations expect to complete in Paris this December. At the heart of the pact are plans from individual nations to control their own greenhouse-gas pollution. Those efforts won’t be nearly enough, the researchers said, in one of the first major analyses of the pledges submitted to date. Hitting a lower, 1.5-degree Celsius target, as some scientists have urged, looks even less likely.
“It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2 degrees Celsius could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5 degrees Celsius beyond reach,” Bill Hare, chief executive officer of Potsdam, Germany-based Climate Analytics, one of the four research centers, said in a statement. The national pledges “need to be considerably strengthened..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...forts-to-cut-carbon-pollution-won-t-be-enough
"Pledges from dozens of nations to rein in carbon emissions aren’t enough so far to avoid catastrophic climate change, according to four European research centers.
Plans submitted by China, the U.S., the European Union and other top polluters won’t limit global warming to the 2-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) threshold that scientists have recommended, the Climate Action Tracker coalition said in a report Wednesday.
Diplomats are meeting in Bonn this week to continue working on the landmark climate-change deal that more than 190 nations expect to complete in Paris this December. At the heart of the pact are plans from individual nations to control their own greenhouse-gas pollution. Those efforts won’t be nearly enough, the researchers said, in one of the first major analyses of the pledges submitted to date. Hitting a lower, 1.5-degree Celsius target, as some scientists have urged, looks even less likely.
“It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2 degrees Celsius could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5 degrees Celsius beyond reach,” Bill Hare, chief executive officer of Potsdam, Germany-based Climate Analytics, one of the four research centers, said in a statement. The national pledges “need to be considerably strengthened..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...forts-to-cut-carbon-pollution-won-t-be-enough
The bottom line is that the world is not going to stop burning fossil fuels until an alternative energy source is discovered or invented that is as efficient as fossil fuel. Period. End of story.
IMHO I think that it is highly likely that an alternative energy source will be discovered/invented at some point in the future. At that point the world will lower carbon emissions. Taxing and a stupid exchange so that Gore can become a billionaire will not do it. Evil capitalism will do it at some point.
Look if the libtards were actually serious about finding an alternative energy source they would do something like the Manhattan Project for alternative energy.
It would be great to hear how in the hell you think that Antarctica is experiencing a NET GAIN of ice when you belief that there is global warming. The new study by NASA that I posted above just blew a big fucking hole in the IPCC report and the global warming hypothesis in general.
"Are you saying that our measurements of levels of CO2 are made up?" No, of course not. Don't be insulting. If the word nominal bothers you, use the word 'measured' for it. Don't go nuts over this, just re-read my post and follow the example. It will be clear to you then that if I say to you the CO2 has gone up over the last hundred years from 280 to 380 that I have conveyed some useful information, whereas if I say the CO2 has gone up 40% I haven't. Think about this Nitro, I am confident that you are one of the few here who can grasp this.
Last edited:
Nitro, regarding piezoe.....
Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have "played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions".[5] The authors write that this has resulted in "deliberate obfuscation" of the issues which has had an influence on public opinion and policy-making.[5]
OBFUSCATION, he's good at it huh? It may be crude, but I think it is accurate. He is simply a bullshit artist.
But yeah, fusion is a possible savior. It now it is a race. But even fusion will not remove the CO2 already there. And as you point out, the Paris agreement is pitiful. The planet is in for some hard times ahead. I feel sorry for the grandchildren.
Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have "played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions".[5] The authors write that this has resulted in "deliberate obfuscation" of the issues which has had an influence on public opinion and policy-making.[5]
OBFUSCATION, he's good at it huh? It may be crude, but I think it is accurate. He is simply a bullshit artist.
But yeah, fusion is a possible savior. It now it is a race. But even fusion will not remove the CO2 already there. And as you point out, the Paris agreement is pitiful. The planet is in for some hard times ahead. I feel sorry for the grandchildren.
Last edited: