20 Nov 19
@humy saidStrawman argument.
I don't know who is this "Kazetnagorra" and I did NOT call/imply any people "monsters", at least not for drying inland seas.
How does this answer any of my questions or counterargue? Its irrelevant.
Nearly all people, including me and you, are inadvertently partly indirectly and collectively responsible for various environmental problems but don't call or think we are all 'mon ...[text shortened]... int here? .."
And, at least until if or when you do, we all know you have lost the argument here.
Sea levels are not rising very much and cyclical accelerations that last 17 years are normal.
20 Nov 19
I’ve come into this late and am not wading through every post. Speaking as a chemistry student of many decades ago I can tell you that the solubility of CO2 in sea water depends on temperature. Therefore the warmer the planet the more CO2 is surrendered by the oceans. Therefore CO2 doesn’t push temperature but is pulled by it (800 year lag). If you are one of those that feel that containing greenhouse gas omissions is the way to go then the most plentiful and easiest to address is methane; the biggest cause is the cattle industry which is a point not generally allowed to be raised because of the lobbying power in the US.
20 Nov 19
2 edits
@medullah saidHello, fellow scientist. None of the chemistry you describe should lead to the conclusion that CO2 doesn't push temperature. A spinning turbine will cause air to move but air also moves wind turbines.
I’ve come into this late and am not wading through every post. Speaking as a chemistry student of many decades ago I can tell you that the solubility of CO2 in sea water depends on temperature. Therefore the warmer the planet the more CO2 is surrendered by the oceans. Therefore CO2 doesn’t push temperature but is pulled by it (800 year lag). If you are one of those that feel ...[text shortened]... ndustry which is a point not generally allowed to be raised because of the lobbying power in the US.
Also, agriculture as a cause of emissions does get talked about quite a bit in actionable circles. For example the AgSTAR program has been given credit for bringing down methane emissions of late. It's appropriately listed as the EPA page regarding methane emissions....
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane
20 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidNow, back to what we were talking about;
Strawman argument.
Sea levels are not rising very much and cyclical accelerations that last 17 years are normal.
"...How does the drying up of inland seas mitigate the harm done by coastal land being flooded by sea level rise? Surely the drying up of those inland seas is generally a BAD thing (and the sublinks I read seems to clearly confirm this) and the land so gained is unlikely to be as useful to us as the land lost via sea level rise!
Thus, given that's the case, what is their (and your) point here? .."
21 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidNone of the chemistry you describe should lead to the conclusion that CO2 does push temperatures and methane doesn't push temperature.
Hello, fellow scientist. None of the chemistry you describe should lead to the conclusion that CO2 doesn't push temperature. A spinning turbine will cause air to move but air also moves wind turbines.
Also, agriculture as a cause of emissions does get talked about quite a bit in actionable circles. For example the AgSTAR program has been given credit for bringing down me ...[text shortened]... egarding methane emissions....
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane
He brings up an excellent point and you are making unproven assertions based on rumor rather than fact. You have no evidence CO2 is causing GW. All you have is a popular rumor you chose to believe based on political bias.
There is a clear correlation between temperatures and methane levels. The lag time is less than CO2. Why didn't methane become the bogeyman instead of CO2? They both lagged behind temps.
21 Nov 19
@humy saidWe were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking. That undercuts your position that sea level rise is a serious problem. The notion that sea level rise is a threat is obviously ridiculous if man is creating more new land than is being lost to GW.
Now, back to what we were talking about;
"...How does the drying up of inland seas mitigate the harm done by coastal land being flooded by sea level rise? Surely the drying up of those inland seas is generally a BAD thing (and the sublinks I read seems to clearly confirm this) and the land so gained is unlikely to be as useful to us as the land lost via sea level rise!
Thus, given that's the case, what is their (and your) point here? .."
21 Nov 19
@Metal-Brain
I didn't describe any chemistry. It is illogical to say that CO2 does not push temperature because of its solubility properties in water.
CO2 is not the only player, that's well established. No one's arguing methane isn't important.
21 Nov 19
@wildgrass said"CO2 is not the only player, that's well established."
@Metal-Brain
I didn't describe any chemistry. It is illogical to say that CO2 does not push temperature because of its solubility properties in water.
CO2 is not the only player, that's well established. No one's arguing methane isn't important.
That is a lie. False assertions are not evidence. That is nothing more than a hypothesis put forth by proponents of a carbon tax. A methane tax is not practical for taxing fossil fuels. That is the only reason it was omitted from GW propaganda. It has nothing to do with evidence at all.
21 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidSo are you now saying there doesn't exist other greenhouse gasses i.e. that are NOT CO2?
"CO2 is not the only player, that's well established."
That is a lie.
I though earlier you admitted CH4 was a greenhouse gas?
21 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidThink about what you're writing for pities sake. You've highlighted: "CO2 is not the only player, that's well established." from wildgrass's post. As an easy reference the Wikipedia page on radiative forcing [1] has a diagram on the right of the page next to the section on IPCC usage which shows the various contributions to radiative forcing of the environment. It is clear from the diagram that carbon dioxide is not the only player. So your next sentence is just abuse, wildgrass's statement is not a lie as is easily demonstrated. What is more you can hardly have thought it was. The next sentence "False assertions are not evidence.", well then don't make false assertions such as accusing people of lying when they patently are not.
"CO2 is not the only player, that's well established."
That is a lie. False assertions are not evidence. That is nothing more than a hypothesis put forth by proponents of a carbon tax. A methane tax is not practical for taxing fossil fuels. That is the only reason it was omitted from GW propaganda. It has nothing to do with evidence at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
21 Nov 19
9 edits
@deepthought saidI had seen this link several times before but somehow failed to notice that it gives REAL DATA that, without being pedantic and thus not considering the absurd possibility of a vast global mass conspiracy by all scientists to fake vast amounts of data for no reason whatsoever, proves not only CO2 is a greenhouse gas but also proves its the main one in the sense that, out of all of them EXCLUDING water vapor ("EXCLUDING water vapor" because although water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the more water vapor the more clouds to reflect sunlight thus difficult to say if it has an overall net warming or cooling effect), its contributing the most to the greenhouse warming effect.
Think about what you're writing for pities sake. You've highlighted: "CO2 is not the only player, that's well established." from wildgrass's post. As an easy reference the Wikipedia page on radiative forcing [1] has a diagram on the right of the page next to the section on IPCC usage which shows the various contributions to radiative forcing of the environment. It is c ...[text shortened]... g people of lying when they patently are not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The link says;
"...The table below (derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models) shows changes in radiative forcing between 1979 and 2016.[19] The table includes the contribution to radiative forcing from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 12 and 11; and fifteen other minor, long-lived, halogenated gases.
...
(large data table shown here)
...
The table shows that CO2 dominates the total forcing, with methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) becoming relatively smaller contributors to the total forcing over time.[19] The five major greenhouse gases account for about 96% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gas increases since 1750.
...
Most of this increase is related to CO2. For 2013, the AGGI was 1.34 (representing an increase in total direct radiative forcing of 34% since 1990). The increase in CO2 forcing alone since 1990 was about 46%.
..."
Completely conclusive to anyone using more than one brain cell or any normal person not with crazed delusions and not particularly lacking in intellect.
21 Nov 19
@medullah saidIf it were just a matter of the oceans and the atmosphere and some orbital forcing then what you are saying would be true. However, it doesn't work quite like that because we're pumping large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So there is an additional source.
I’ve come into this late and am not wading through every post. Speaking as a chemistry student of many decades ago I can tell you that the solubility of CO2 in sea water depends on temperature. Therefore the warmer the planet the more CO2 is surrendered by the oceans. Therefore CO2 doesn’t push temperature but is pulled by it (800 year lag). If you are one of those that feel ...[text shortened]... ndustry which is a point not generally allowed to be raised because of the lobbying power in the US.
Also, what you are saying about methane is not right. On a per molecule basis it is a more potent climate forcing gas, but carbon dioxide is the single biggest contributor. Another point is that rice production contributes 11% of antropogenic methane emissions, according to the Wikipedia page this is ~1.5% of greenhouse forcing [1], enteric fermentation contributes ~2.5% of greenhouse forcing gases [2]. You cannot possibly think that rice production should be halted. According to both of the pages on rice and enteric fermentation, which I imagine is easier to reduce by modifying feeding practices, there is considerable effort to find ways of reducing the impact of both sources.
Between them they account for 4% of greenhouse forcing gases, and something around 1/3 (hack's estimate) of methane emissions. The rest comes from landfill and the petroleum industry.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice#Environmental_impacts
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_fermentation#Experimental_management
21 Nov 19
@medullah saidDon't worry about not reading the whole of the rest of the thread, I haven't, there's 40 odd pages and not all of it's particularly sane.
I’ve come into this late and am not wading through every post. Speaking as a chemistry student of many decades ago I can tell you that the solubility of CO2 in sea water depends on temperature. Therefore the warmer the planet the more CO2 is surrendered by the oceans. Therefore CO2 doesn’t push temperature but is pulled by it (800 year lag). If you are one of those that feel ...[text shortened]... ndustry which is a point not generally allowed to be raised because of the lobbying power in the US.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@deepthought saidThanks for the warning.
Don't worry about not reading the whole of the rest of the thread, I haven't, there's 40 odd pages and not all of it's particularly sane.
The inanity of science denial continues.
21 Nov 19
@deepthought saidCorrection to this, petroleum industry should read fossil fuel industry. Since coal mining creates methane emissions. I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Methane emissions and the UK's emissions fell from 120,000 kiloTonne of carbon dioxide equivalent to just under 60,000 kT from 1970 to 2012. I spent some time wondering about that since successive governments have hardly had methane reduction as a policy driver. The only conclusion, in the absence of a detailed analysis (I haven't looked for one), is that closing down the bulk of the British coal industry has halved the UK's methane emissions.
If it were just a matter of the oceans and the atmosphere and some orbital forcing then what you are saying would be true. However, it doesn't work quite like that because we're pumping large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So there is an additional source.
Also, what you are saying about methane is not right. On a per molecule basis it is a more p ...[text shortened]... nvironmental_impacts
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_fermentation#Experimental_management