A strawman fallacy, in which the statements or arguments made by another are distorted in order to somehow discredit the original idea.Yeah, CO2, a gas that is needed for life on Earth, is just like cynaide.
That is your twelfth logical fallacy, if I am correct.
Do you always rely on flawed logic to think about important issues?
<edit>
I was not correct. This was only Darrins eleventh logical fallacy, not the twelfth. Although I could have missed one or two, who knows.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-14-2010 at 06:27 PM.
That depends on the form of cyanide, doesn't it.
If your body already has 100 mg of cyanide in it, what does adding another 3 mg do?
I'm awaiting your answer.
No, that's what your indoctrination says. the science has not properly eliminated other possibilities, and the known theories involving Henry's law, and solubility vs. temperature, say otherwise.
Total fail.
I said there was no quantifiable number. I didn't say it didn't cause warming.
How can you be smart enough to debate us, if you are too stupid to understand such simple concepts?
That's a relief. How about 30 years? We only need 15 more years of no statistically significant warming.
Lets see...
In the long term, to maintain a level of 400 ppm, we would have to emit a total carbon content into the atmosphere of about
The total carbon in the carbon cycle is approximately 41,940 giga-tons. Our annual emission is about 8 giga tons. Over the long term equalization occurs. We emit, on an annual basis, about 1% of the atmospheric content, but after the added sinking to establish equilibrium, only about 0.43% remains added to the atmospheric content. these are numbers we see. With the solar energy heating the oceans for the last few hundred years, and an approximate 800 year cycle, this warming is changing the equilibrium. You cannot say, without scientific doubt, that we wouldn't see near this increase if the oceans maintained their cooler heat content.
You really need to understand gas solubility in fluids, and Henry's law better.
I calculated it before. If the oceans maintained a constant temperature, it would take a very long time at 8 GtC annual to make a small increase in atmospheric levels.
Think about it. 8 GtC annual vs. 41,940 GtC total
Please study the Carbon Cycle.
wild cobra = flawed logic
Not by much.
The atmospheric window is already almost 100% covered by the opacity of CO2 to IR, in the associated spectral areas. It takes a very large change in CO2 to make a small change in how much IR escapes out to space. temperature stabilized at the point that incoming radiation +/-latent energy equals outgoing radiation.
You really need to understand system dynamics better.
FWIW, the graph posted includes CO2 emissions from activities outside the normal buring of fossil fuels, such as gas flaring and cement manufacture.
"Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006"
Yearly output of man-made CO2 seems to be more on the order of 26GtC.
I don't think you know anything about the feedback cycles involved in all of this, and have made a fallacy of composition, in which the sum of the whole can have different characteristics than the components. Sure all of this has to obey the laws of physics, but we have only begun to understand the system of our climate, and the carbon cycle.
That you seem to think you understand both well enough to come to a near certain determination or conclusion is damning, since even the people who study this admit that it is far more complex than has been fully understood to date.
"Not by much"
The "shoulders" argument, yet another thing I have seen put out into the aether.
Please quantify the effect, in terms of added surface temperature per added increase in concentration, then show me the data on which you have formed that conclusion.
Yes, but GtC and GtCO2m are two different numbers.
Atoms of carbon are a molecular weight of 12. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44. There is a 3:11 ratio. Your 26 GtCO2 becomes 7.09 GtC.
How can you debate such a topic when you lack the understanding for it?
How much of your beliefs are based on lack of understanding, and other people's propaganda?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-14-2010 at 03:26 PM.
Why should those who are rational, and show the AGW theory is way off, have to prove anything? isn't the AGW people making the claim that should have to show their work, in how they quantify the numbers? Ever see their methodology? I had teachers is school that not matter how correct your answers were, they gave you a failing grade if you didn't show your work.
I cannot quantify CO2 radiative forcing effects in the atmosphere, nor can the alarmists. I have however shown evidence, in several ways, why they are wrong. If you ever read how they quantify it, you would agree their methodology is a joke.
As a conservative, I am OK with using 8 GtC, for a margin of error in my calculations. every source I have seen says less than 8 GtC. 8 GtC becomes 29-1/3 GtCO2. Higher than your 26 that you stuck your foot in your mouth with.
LOL..
The giggling fits of a child...
LOL
The senile ramblings of an old man...
An honest answer, thank you.We might not know the exact effect indeed, but if we continue to emit more and more CO2, that effect will, in all probability, get greater over time, yes or no?
So again, I am faced with a question of who to believe, people who study climate for a living, or people who don't.
People who study it for a living seem to be fairly sure we are doing some harm, and having an increasingly large effect.
Over time we will get to see the effects first-hand, as I am fairly certain we will do next to nothing as a civilization to reign in CO2 emissions, so we are lurching along that path.
The real conservative, risk-avoiding strategy would be to take some moderate steps to avoid the potential very negative outcomes, especially as these steps, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, offer some very tangible and plausible benefits outside the question of whether CO2 emissions are harmful.
The real question always comes back to "what to do about it?". Many would argue that our current course of action, i.e. nothing, is the best because we just don't know the risk of negative outcomes (although WC does put it at less than .00000001% probability due to his certainty about *his* calculations).
I find this reckless, and about as un-conservative as one can get, especially when the near-certain benefits of limiting CO2 emissions over time are weighed.
It boils down to most believing because of indoctrination, and some pushing an agenda for money and power. Kings did it, churches did it. It has occurred over and over in history, and I would bet my life, this is another case of the past repeating itself.
I have never claimed to be error-free, nor have I claimed to be an expert in this. Science literate, yes, expert no.
Trying to reconcile differing sources and defintions of things is one of the difficulties involved in considering the subject, and why I defer to others.
Personally, I wonder if the C/CO2 distinction is made by others whom you base your data on.
When Darwin presented his findings there was similar backlash from non-scientists, because it punctured certain dogmas.
I would bet this is another case of the past repeating itself.
Aren't historical analogies fun?
You mean like the backlash from IPCC scientists?
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_file...tsSpeakOut.pdf
A link to your ty article. Gee, thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
