Epic Correction of the Decade

[pErvinalia]

I gave my reasoning perfectly clearly.

Your reasoning is faulty. Look at your reasoning, for example that since CO2 only makes up 0.041% of the atmosphere it is questionable that it has much of an effect on temperature. It's entirely lacking supporting facts. Supply them.

I won't hold my breath.

My contempt for your honesty as a debater just got raised another notch.
You try to score points by ignoring my own reasoning, which was about the circular chain reaction that ought to happen when CO2 rises, but doesn't. Instead, you quote any other thing as a desperate distraction.

Nobody on this thread has given an honest answer to that, and I take that as a victory for common sense, against committed indoctrinated alarmists who won't hear a word said against their obsessive closed minded belief in what they've been spoon fed.

Bullshit. I explained to you why it's faulty (and ironically simplistic) thinking to assume a positive feedback will go on for ever.

It's so like religion, you people can't even see it.

That's some irony right there. The armchair expert who demonstrably doesn't understand much science, and knows essentially nothing about thermodynamics, is calling SCIENCE religion!

I personally am still wide open to AGW being real and a problem. I just reject the rabid clamour that you are a sinner to disagree, which you lot should be ashamed of.

Good to see you starting to walk back your idiotic views on science as a giant conspiracy theory. I guess we should be thankful for small mercies.

What I see is weak evidence, big flaws in the facts, and people who get upset and won't even look when the evidence points the other way.
Basically, the same as religion.

You've just described yourself there. You've ignored tonnes of evidence in this thread when it doesn't reflect your biased view.

But if some real evidence comes out to support it, I'll be happy to follow it.

[mistermack]

I've been posting these for years on this site. Nothing seems to change :


The place was promised to be ice-free by now. Whatever can have gone wrong????

[Brian Peacock]

...
I like how everybody likes to dwell on anything, rather than the actual point. Which is that runaway warming should occur, if the planet is so sensitive to CO2 levels.

Indeed. Now all you need to do is account for lag in the system. I'm sure common sense will tell you that global temperatures will not rise instantly with every additional x-tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, there'll be some lag, so a good indicator might be to look at average sea and air temperatures over time and map that against what we already know from carbon chemistry. I'll leave you to search out that information for yourself.

Yes, it was warm in the Cambrian. But we are still here. There was no runaway heating. It was 7 deg hotter.
That's ok. What you spend on cooling, you save on heating.
The Sahara might grow, but Russia and Canada and Alaska might be quite balmy.

Hmm. So if I've read this right, you're now meeting the challenge by saying that we shouldn't be concerned about the global temperature rises anyway?

The survival of the planet isn't in question, and the notion that we somehow need to 'save the planet' is a misnomer. Nor is a 7 degree rise a threat to Life on Earth, even if it is a threat to a great many species. And the reason it's a threat to a great many species is because a 7 degree rise would have a significant impact on their ecosystems - relatively modest rises are already having that effect. But now you have to direct your common sense towards the ecological effects on humans of, say, a 7 degree rise in global temperatures and the impact that would have on us as a species, and more specifically as a civilisation; the displacement caused by rising sea levels, the change in land use, forestation, and soil condition; our our ability to deploy the resources and infrastructure of our contemporary existence, our systems of government, finance, law and order, medicine, our communications, our social structures, communities, families, and ultimately ourselves personally.

Now, if you don't want to dwell on those sorts of possibilities then that's your business, but if you're going to deny and misrepresent science in order to forward the point that nobody should be concerned about these things because you're not worried about them then, well, that's a different matter entirely isn't it?

[mistermack]

...
I like how everybody likes to dwell on anything, rather than the actual point. Which is that runaway warming should occur, if the planet is so sensitive to CO2 levels.

Indeed. Now all you need to do is account for lag in the system. I'm sure common sense will tell you that global temperatures will not rise instantly with every additional x-tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, there'll be some lag,

Why? Is that your own "common sense" deduction?

Can you offer a reason why?

effects on humans of, say, a 7 degree rise in global temperatures and the impact that would have on us as a species,

You did notice, I hope, that CO2 levels in the Cambrian were up to 7,000 parts per million?
Even the top alarmists aren't forecasting that any time soon.

[Brian Peacock]

...
I like how everybody likes to dwell on anything, rather than the actual point. Which is that runaway warming should occur, if the planet is so sensitive to CO2 levels.

Indeed. Now all you need to do is account for lag in the system. I'm sure common sense will tell you that global temperatures will not rise instantly with every additional x-tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, there'll be some lag,

Why? Is that your own "common sense" deduction?

Can you offer a reason why?

No, it's not my common sense (I was just trying to appeal to your common sense, being as you place an amount of personal value on it), it's just a fact. There's a lag. CO2 absorbs IR radiation, heat. A slightly hotter CO2 molecule is not going make all the other molecules around it hotter instantly. If you keep adding energy then, in time, the ambient temperature of the volume will rise, and if you keep adding CO2 as well the temperature will rise more quickly, but it's not an instant reaction.

Are you suggesting that there should be no lag?

effects on humans of, say, a 7 degree rise in global temperatures and the impact that would have on us as a species,

You did notice, I hope, that CO2 levels in the Cambrian were up to 7,000 parts per million?
Even the top alarmists aren't forecasting that any time soon.

But you said that was 'OK', so what was your point?

[pErvinalia]

Your diagram is utterly irrelevant - none of this involves "exothermic reactions", which involve the breaking of chemical bonds. In terms of atmospheric and dissolved CO2, we have a complex relationship - initially, excess atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans. This produces a time lag, but eventually (for reasons not associated with "exothermic reactions"), global warming will first reduce, and then reverse the rate of absorption - then the real problems will begin...

I didn't say it did involve exothermic chemical reactions. Nice attempt at diverting attention.

Well, why post an utterly irrelevant diagram showing exothermic chemical reactions?

What we can take from that is a useful pointer to your lack of basic scientific knowledge.

I'm sure you knew that I was pointing to chain reactions of a circular nature in general, not specific chemical exothermic reactions.
Since nobody was even mentioning chemical exothermic reactions.

I like how everybody likes to dwell on anything, rather than the actual point. Which is that runaway warming should occur, if the planet is so sensitive to CO2 levels.

It should only necessarily occur if energy can't be converted into forms other than heat. But it can.

Reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied from as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years. Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century,[2] to 403 ppm as of 2016.[3]

Yes, it was warm in the Cambrian. But we are still here.

"Still"? We were never present in the Cambrian. Hominids have only been around for about 5 million years. Now I can't be certain, but I've heard it said that modern technology and infrastructure that is highly sensitive to overheating hadn't actually been invented 55 million years ago. But I think it was a some scientist who said that. And we all know how trustworthy they are, right?

It was 7 deg hotter.
That's ok.

WTF?! Amongst your impressive catalogue of dumb statements, that's one of your dumbest yet. This simple shit has all been explained to you numerous times before, but you remain willfully ignorant.

What you spend on cooling, you save on heating.

It's not a question of financial balances. To cool stationary things at any effect you need a motor. Electrical motors fail in high temperatures. Let me guess, you'll just suggest we get more electrical motors to cool the overheated ones?

The Sahara might grow, but Russia and Canada and Alaska might be quite balmy.

In a topic where you regularly show your ignorance, this is top level ignorance. Climate change isn't about 'comfort', nor is it primarily about economics. It's about ecology, ecological services, geography and physics.

[pErvinalia]

I've been posting these for years on this site. Nothing seems to change :


The place was promised to be ice-free by now. Whatever can have gone wrong????

So your "reasoning" is that because a prediction is wrong... what then? Surely your grasp of logic and reasoning isn't that totally shit. Surely?

[mistermack]

There's a lag. CO2 absorbs IR radiation, heat. A slightly hotter CO2 molecule is not going make all the other molecules around it hotter instantly. If you keep adding adding energy then, in time, the ambient temperature of the volume will rise, and if you keep adding CO2 as well the temperature will rise more quickly, but it's not an instant reaction.

So, there is a lag. Are we talking about milliseconds, or would it be whole seconds?

[pErvinalia]

...
I like how everybody likes to dwell on anything, rather than the actual point. Which is that runaway warming should occur, if the planet is so sensitive to CO2 levels.

Indeed. Now all you need to do is account for lag in the system. I'm sure common sense will tell you that global temperatures will not rise instantly with every additional x-tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, there'll be some lag, so a good indicator might be to look at average sea and air temperatures over time and map that against what we already know from carbon chemistry. I'll leave you to search out that information for yourself.

Yes, it was warm in the Cambrian. But we are still here. There was no runaway heating. It was 7 deg hotter.
That's ok. What you spend on cooling, you save on heating.
The Sahara might grow, but Russia and Canada and Alaska might be quite balmy.

Hmm. So if I've read this right, you're now meeting the challenge by saying that we shouldn't be concerned about the global temperature rises anyway?

The survival of the planet isn't in question, and the notion that we somehow need to 'save the planet' is a misnomer. Nor is a 7 degree rise a threat to Life on Earth, even if it is a threat to a great many species. And the reason it's a threat to a great many species is because a 7 degree rise would have a significant impact on their ecosystems - relatively modest rises are already having that effect. But now you have to direct your common sense towards the ecological effects on humans of, say, a 7 degree rise in global temperatures and the impact that would have on us as a species, and more specifically as a civilisation; the displacement caused by rising sea levels, the change in land use, forestation, and soil condition; our our ability to deploy the resources and infrastructure of our contemporary existence, our systems of government, finance, law and order, medicine, our communications, our social structures, communities, families, and ultimately ourselves personally.

Now, if you don't want to dwell on those sorts of possibilities then that's your business, but if you're going to deny and misrepresent science in order to forward the point that nobody should be concerned about these things because you're not worried about them then, well, that's a different matter entirely isn't it?

And not to mention that 7c was the AVERAGE. Extremes increase more than the average.

[mistermack]

I've been posting these for years on this site. Nothing seems to change :


The place was promised to be ice-free by now. Whatever can have gone wrong????

So your "reasoning" is that because a prediction is wrong... what then? Surely your grasp of logic and reasoning isn't that totally shit. Surely?

Not as shit as your eyesight. Obviously.

[Animavore]

I had a doctor warn me against casual smoking last week when I went for a check up. Bloody cancer alarmist.

[mistermack]

And not to mention that 7c was the AVERAGE. Extremes increase more than the average.

And extremes of cool would be less.
That's how averages work.

[pErvinalia]

I've been posting these for years on this site. Nothing seems to change :


The place was promised to be ice-free by now. Whatever can have gone wrong????

So your "reasoning" is that because a prediction is wrong... what then? Surely your grasp of logic and reasoning isn't that totally shit. Surely?

Not as shit as your eyesight. Obviously.

So what is your "reasoning" then? You can't complain that you've been repeatedly ignored while posting some inane diagram, and then when given the opportunity to make your point you drop the ball. Make your point, or stop sooking.

[pErvinalia]

And not to mention that 7c was the AVERAGE. Extremes increase more than the average.

And extremes of cool would be less.
That's how averages work.

That's nice dear, but totally missing the point. It's the extreme temperatures that are the immediate threat to continued human technological existence.

[mistermack]

So what is your "reasoning" then? You can't complain that you've been repeatedly ignored while posting some inane diagram, and then when given the opportunity to make your point you drop the ball. Make your point, or stop sooking.

So anything that contradicts your obsessive belief is inane then?

The worlds most foremost authority on arctic sea ice isn't good enough for you?
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Funny that you can quote "sceptical science" till the cows come home, even though it's just some bloke's blog.