[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's another cute little greenhouse gas experiment for you to conduct Zip. I've done it. Go outside on a muggy summer's evening. It's still hot right. OK now go outside at night, after a hot day in the desert. It's unpleasantly cold, subjectively speaking, of course. In fact I would say damned cold. Why is that? Keep in mind CO2 is supposed to spread throughout the planet, and that CO2 is supposed to be melting the polar icecaps.

Wut? Fail "experiment" is Fail.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's another cute little greenhouse gas experiment for you to conduct Zip. I've done it. Go outside on a muggy summer's evening. It's still hot right. OK now go outside at night, after a hot day in the desert. It's unpleasantly cold, subjectively speaking, of course. In fact I would say damned cold. Why is that? Keep in mind CO2 is supposed to spread throughout the planet, and that CO2 is supposed to be melting the polar icecaps.

'Greenhouse gases'. Why is that term plural?

Because CO2 isn't alone. It needs help. CO2 + Water Vapour + Methane/or similar = greenhouse gasses.

In the desert, there is no water vapour to help hold in the heat. (like there is in a greenhouse).

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's another cute little greenhouse gas experiment for you to conduct Zip. I've done it. Go outside on a muggy summer's evening. It's still hot right. OK now go outside at night, after a hot day in the desert. It's unpleasantly cold, subjectively speaking, of course. In fact I would say damned cold. Why is that? Keep in mind CO2 is supposed to spread throughout the planet, and that CO2 is supposed to be melting the polar icecaps.

See, now that's not a scientific experiment at all. No hypothesis, you haven't stated clearly what the matter is that you';re seeking to resolve, you haven't said how you're going to account for independent and dependent variables.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Greenhouse gases'. Why is that term plural?

Because CO2 isn't alone. It needs help. CO2 + Water Vapour + Methane/or similar = greenhouse gasses.

In the desert, there is no water vapour to help hold in the heat. (like there is in a greenhouse).

Or the arctic (which is, I think, technically a desert).

[N_Fiddledog]

Don't get it, eh? Very well. I'll explain.

Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. In fact it's the most prevalent gas. 95 percent of all greenhouse gases are made up of water vapor. CO2 is the one you hear about, because there's a human produced element which can be government controlled, but water vapor is the one you can notice in the real world. Climate warms. Climate cools, but if you want to say, "Oh my God, it's getting warmer, and we're all gonna die. Climate's warming, and it's all our fault" you start talking about CO2.

But in the sense of what you can actually experience, does CO2 as the villain make sense?

If you go out on a muggy summer's evening, it's still hot after the sun goes down. What you're feeling is the greenhouse effect. Heat energy has been captured by the water vapor in the atmosphere, which makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Some of that heat energy is re-emitted downwards, and you feel hot. I've slept many nights on BC beaches in nothing, but shorts and a T shirt.

CO2 makes up only about 4% of all greenhouse gases. That's not much. (3% of that 4% is man-caused CO2).

When I sleep in the desert, I put on jeans and a sweatshirt, and wrap my sleeping bag around me. That's because it's cold. There's no water vapor to speak of. I have to rely on CO2 for greenhouse effect. CO2 alone doesn't do a very good job of keeping the atmosphere warm in that situation.

OK, so when you tell me CO2 is melting the Arctic, I think of those cold nights I spent in the desert, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It's more complicated than that, of course. I believe the greenhouse effect we're supposed to be worried about is much higher so I assume it's a more Earth-general warming. Nevertheless, you can experience the greenhouse effect, and from that experience, CO2 is just not that scary.

[CanadianJeff]

Where did you hear that only 4% of warming is caused by CO2?

[Zipperfish]

Annihilator Annihilator:

I'm sorry, but how did you gather an average on global warming? If golbal warming is caused by man, then it is probably the first time in the history of earth that it happens. If it's the first time, it's impossible to do an average. If you would like to do an average, you would need to have creater thosands on planets on which you have created different intelligent populations, and examined the effect of their activity on wheather over thousands of years, and concluded that gas emission created by the populations' industries will on average lead to a global warming. But as you can see, it's not that simple. The averages about wheather that we have now are in no way sufficient to predict the issue of a situation that we've never faced before, that is global warming.

No I don't think that follows at all.

$1:

Secondly, there is much more to weather changes than the quantity of carbon dioxyde. It can have an effect to some extand,

I'm sorry, do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

$1:

Compared to all the gas created on earth, man-made CO2 represents a very slim part of it, so saying that there will be a direct correlation between earth temperature and man made CO2 is wrong.

Well, the great majority of research scientists doing research in relevant fields disagree with you. If it's OK with you, I'm going to go along with what they say.

$1:

Basically, what you're doing is that you're taking the whole situation and dealing with it in an overly simple manner. There are thousands of different variables involved in this and making predictions about how the earth can warm up takes a lot of knowledge in this very specific scientific area. Even if you are one of the best expert in the world about this subject, it will be very hard to be sure about those predictions. You can't just use a few variables, use anecdotal evidences and try to make a prediction out of it.

But I have. There are indeed thousands of variables involved and yet here I am predicting it's going to warmer in July than November.

$1:

Finally, even if it turns out that there is indeed a global warming, it will be irrelevant, as there is no direct correlation between human activity and wheather changes. There is no proof that the earth isn't going through a natural warming cycle, there is no proof that it is the man and not the sun that is causing the warming.

There is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. What's your point?

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Don't get it, eh? Very well. I'll explain.

Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. In fact it's the most prevalent gas. 95 percent of all greenhouse gases are made up of water vapor. CO2 is the one you hear about, because there's a human produced element which can be government controlled, but water vapor is the one you can notice in the real world. Climate warms. Climate cools, but if you want to say, "Oh my God, it's getting warmer, and we're all gonna die. Climate's warming, and it's all our fault" you start talking about CO2.

But in the sense of what you can actually experience, does CO2 as the villain make sense?

If you go out on a muggy summer's evening, it's still hot after the sun goes down. What you're feeling is the greenhouse effect. Heat energy has been captured by the water vapor in the atmosphere, which makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Some of that heat energy is re-emitted downwards, and you feel hot. I've slept many nights on BC beaches in nothing, but shorts and a T shirt.

CO2 makes up only about 4% of all greenhouse gases. That's not much. (3% of that 4% is man-caused CO2).

When I sleep in the desert, I put on jeans and a sweatshirt, and wrap my sleeping bag around me. That's because it's cold. There's no water vapor to speak of. I have to rely on CO2 for greenhouse effect. CO2 alone doesn't do a very good job of keeping the atmosphere warm in that situation.

OK, so when you tell me CO2 is melting the Arctic, I think of those cold nights I spent in the desert, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It's more complicated than that, of course. I believe the greenhouse effect we're supposed to be worried about is much higher so I assume it's a more Earth-general warming. Nevertheless, you can experience the greenhouse effect, and from that experience, CO2 is just not that scary.

I don’t recall the "we're all going to die thing." I remember you saying that we were going to cede our national sovereignty to the UN over this issue--a rather alarmist statement, in my opinion. But I don't recall saying "we're all going to die."

But if it'll make you any happier, I'll concede the point: We are all going to die. Is that's what's bothering you?

I don't recall saying that it is scary. I believe what I've said is that doubling the concentration of CO2 will raise the temperature about one deg C, independently of any various feedback loops.

Your relentless attempts to put words in my mouth like “scary” “alarmist” and “we’re all going to die” just reek of desperation and indicate to me that you are unable to rebut the technical aspects of my argument. Conversely, it seems it is you, not me, making alarmist statements about the whole thing.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

In the context of the full post it would be obvious to anybody, but an idiot what was actually meant by that. It wasn't you can't predict summer and winter, or day and night for that matter.

You're being silly, but it does remind me of an actual serious argument I've heard.

I'm not being silly at all. Being silly would be denying a pretty solid scientific theory on the basis that you don't like the its political ramifications. Being silly would be thinking that science has the same ability to predict the future as tarot cards. Being silly would be accusing me of being an ":alarmist" while screaming that the global warming policy response will result in the destruction of the world's economy and a one-world government under the UN.

[Annihilator]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But I have. There are indeed thousands of variables involved and yet here I am predicting it's going to warmer in July than November.

No you haven't. You made some about next summer, not about how it will be in a hundred years.

Are you serious? It is easy to assume that it will be warmer in the summer because it happens ALL THE FUCKING time and has happened MANY TIMES BEFORE. That's the only reason you can predict it.

Man-made global warming has NEVER HAPPENED before and we don't even know if it is happening right now. So there is absolutely no statistic that can make you predict this because it NEVER HAPPEND.


Oh, and if you're saying that because you can predict that summer is hotter than winter it somehow make you able to predict global warming, you are just nuts.

Oh, take a look, I can predict that summer will be hotter, now I can also predict that in 100 years the average temperature will have remained the same. I'M USING AVERAGES TO PROVE IT, SEE?

So now who's right? We have the same "proofs" (which is that we know that summer is hotter than winter), but when using this proof to predict the future we come to different conclusions. OMG WHATS HAPPENING?

If you don't understand by now that being able to predict that summer is hotter than winter doesn't make you a fucking global wheather psychic, whether you don't want to listen or you're really dumb.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not being silly at all. Being silly would be denying a pretty solid scientific theory on the basis that you don't like the its political ramifications. Being silly would be thinking that science has the same ability to predict the future as tarot cards. Being silly would be accusing me of being an ":alarmist" while screaming that the global warming policy response will result in the destruction of the world's economy and a one-world government under the UN.

You're being silly (also sounding a little desperate). It's cute though. I enjoy it when you guys run out of actual arguments, and have to rely on nonsensical little mini-rants based on intentionally twisted misquotes for substance. It makes me smile.

[Annihilator]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

In the context of the full post it would be obvious to anybody, but an idiot what was actually meant by that. It wasn't you can't predict summer and winter, or day and night for that matter.

You're being silly, but it does remind me of an actual serious argument I've heard.

I'm not being silly at all. Being silly would be denying a pretty solid scientific theory on the basis that you don't like the its political ramifications. Being silly would be thinking that science has the same ability to predict the future as tarot cards. Being silly would be accusing me of being an ":alarmist" while screaming that the global warming policy response will result in the destruction of the world's economy and a one-world government under the UN.

God.. there is NO PROOF that global warming is caused by humans. Absolutely nothing makes a direct correlation between human activity and global warming, there's no causal effect proven.

And here I'm not just talking about a graph that shows that as the number of humans is climbing, the temperature is getting higher. The number of pirates also decreased since a thousand year and the temperature has risen, does that mean that the more pirates there are, the cooler it gets? No. You need a scientific proof that directly links human activity and global warming. And don't come up with the CO2, even if in strict conditions there is a correlation, there is no proofs that says that adding a little CO2 in the atmosphere will automatically lead to higher temperatures. That is not something you can test in a lab.

And just because you can't prove that it's wrong doesn't mean that it's true. Look, you can't prove that I'm a 300 thousands foot tall monster made of cheese, does that mean that it's true? Nope.

[EyeBrock]

What kind of cheese?

[N_Fiddledog]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Where did you hear that only 4% of warming is caused by CO2?

Actually what I said was "CO2 makes up only about 4% of all greenhouse gases." This is a well-known fact. You can find pie-charts and graphs like the one below all over the place.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

However...the warmists get around this inconvenient truth, by postulating another theory. They say the tiny warming from the tiny amount of CO2 warms the much larger amount of water vapor which creates a kind of a domino effect of warming. This is called positive feedback. Most feedback in the real world is negative. Why positive feedbacks suddenly become dominant in global warming theory has never been adequately explained. In fact there is no convincing scientific support for the idea it's actually happening. Basically they just pulled it out their ass. As you get more into this, you'll see more and more of that.

[N_Fiddledog]

Wanna see another graph that will blow your mind a little if you pause to think about it?