Never miss an opportunity to lay down more bad logic, right Darrin?
Just showing things to scale.
Scale is irrelevant without context. The amount of plutonium in the largest bomb is far smaller than the total mass found in area of that bombs blast yet judging simply on scale would not give you an indication of that.
Its more than that. Hes studied one form of engineering so he has at least been introduced to the notion of non-linear systems. He is just a lying sophist piece of .
Hey Darrin why don't you link more from a mailer and then attribute it to NIST.
Oh I don't know if he's lying. Just because he got a degree doesn't mean he ever understood it exceptionally well or retained anything other than what he uses on a daily basis.
Who knows.
Good analogy. Not.
Plutonium is more dangerous than plant food.
I didn't mention danger at all. I simply pointed out how your scale comment was pretty piss poor. The analogy wasn't meant to convey anything about danger at all but rather how scale and effect are not directly related in every situation.
Engineering be it mechanical, physical or whatever relies heavily on putting things in terms of linear systems. If they are not linear then they are restricted in range such that the system behaves in a nearly linear fashion.
Thats what you are doing when you shift gears in a car or bias a transistor. They beat it in to you at every single level be it thermo, mechanics, circuits etc. If he is indeed a trained engineer he knows.
He is just a sophist lying piece of so it very well may be that he is lying about his background. There have been times seeing his takes on things i question whether or not he is who he says he is. This place is rampant with that manner of thing and it really doesnt matter.
The truth is the truth.
Actually, it was meant to show how small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is -- nothing more.
Isn't that what you implied by scale? The relative size doe not matter if the net effect is large. Is this point really this difficult for you to grasp?
I mean, CO2 is a VERY small percentage of the atmosphere a a whole yet our planet would be no where near a warm without it and it still manages to support a very large mass of vegetation.
Are you disputing that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of the rise in those levels?
There again is one of the problems. You have no evidence to say it wouldn't be "nearly as warm. You cannot properly quantify it. You use research which models, which are too much based of guessing. Studies show various things about CO2 to include a few studies that show at some levels it can cool the atmosphere.
I am, and I believe Darrin is also. Temperature changes the solubility of sea water, and we agree the oceans are warming.
Yet you can quantify the in the deep oceans and from soot? You have no credibility but here's a protip: don't support arguments that undermine other arguments, dimwit.
The oceans are warming and they are providing heat too? They got a space heater down in the deep oceans? Do you have the capacity to even think things through?
What the are you talking about? Of course you can quantify it and it has been done. Also, the excess CO2 is not coming from the oceans. You can easily prove that via ph.
Already debunked as dishonest and misleading. You aren't even trying.
Like I said, I have yet to see an adequate rebuttal to the video I posted, therefore I will continue to post it occasionally, on the slmi hope that the Deniers might happen on something that would seriously challenge it.
I see you don't understand solubility and temperature relationships and/or how it applies to the carbon cycle.
I would also point out that your video is a few years old.
What happens to the relative parts when we double our yearly CO2 output? Quadruple? Octuple?
Why does it not address equilibrium values, and the implication of disequilibrium?
Yes please. We need the ocean as a soda pop argument again. It wasn't quite stupid enough the first time. Use the analogy again.
LOL I see you do not understand how dropping oxygen levels in the atmosphere indicate CO2 formed from oxidation of atmospheric carbon and not oceanic release. Hmm, I wonder where that atmospheric carbon might come from?
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351
Here are a ton of graphs that I know you'll love although you'll likely not understand them at all.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publicati...oref4_2001.pdf
It might interest you to know that the Antarctic ice sheet was formed back when the CO2 level was at 600 ppm (today we are around 390 ppm). And, that the Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for the past 40 years.
By the way, what is the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere?
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ins?intcmp=122
Whats the primary factor in increasing ice in the Himalayas? Temp, or Precip?
This is just plain wrong. Antarctica is most certainly not adding ice but rather losing anywhere from 100 GT to 300 GT a year.
The latest research shows that a drop in CO2 is exactly what triggered the formation of the Antarctic Ice sheet so I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove there. You're doing a great job of pointing out how CO2 is a huge forcing, though. Thanks.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 02-08-2012 at 05:00 PM.
Somehow you keep throwing at the wall and none of it sticks. Keep trying, Darrin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
