Global Warming... on Mars?
-
OK, I will only be attacking the obvious: a) 0.0075 is obviously made-up. If I calculate 15% of 25%, I get a 3.75% influence on global warming (ignoring the fact that the global warming and the greenhouse effect are NOT in that kind of relationship). If I take a fifth of that (20% of 3.75%) I also get WAY more than a 0.0075% effect on global warming for a 20% reduction. I am totally ignoring the fact that you fail to name the other factors in global warming, and what their influences on the outcome are. b) You fail to give sources for your argumentation. Please tell me the source of your information that seems to contain factual information what the temperature will be in the future. Your knowledge of 0.006°C implies that you have access to that kind of information. c) You fail to notice that Earth's climate is VERY fragile. A 0.006°C increase in temperature (though made-up) might actually be the cause for our extinction.
Cheers, Sebastian -- Contra vim mortem non est medicamen in hortem.
Sorry, .75 %, but it doesnt affect the final figure. 1) The IPCC is stating a 0.8 `C temperature rise in 100 years. 2) As stated, _if_ greenhouse gasses are only responsible for 25% of the warming, then a 20% reduction in CO2 will have a .75% impact on temperature. And that is 0.0075 times 0.8, which gives 0.006 `C. On to your other points: 1) What other factors do you think there are in global warming and what effect they have? 2)Sources: IPCC for the temperature rise and the relative composition of greenhouse gasses in terms of effectiveness. 3) Is fragility defined as 'Coping with large temperature fluctuations and surviving'?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
The degree to which you take this obsession is alarming. You would have to be blind to think we have no impact. Sure, there's a lot of hype. Sure, its theory. Better safe than sorry. Having lived in LA in the 70s I remember. I remember the blanket of smog. I remember having Red Alert days where we were told to stay indoors, but my father, being the workaholic he is, insisted on working anyway (construction) and so I remember not being able to BREATHE. I tell you what. Forget warming and climate. I'll be concerned over my own lungs. Keep religiously trying to justify SUV consumerism. I'll be happy with the Clean Air Acts one by one in the hopes that I'll be able to continue to breathe without Oxygen support. Get over it. Its boring now. Ok, your religion is anti-climactic change. Nice one. Do you meet on a given day of the week?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I remember the blanket of smog
NO2 SO2 all pollutants, O3 only a pollutant low in the atmosphere. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary part of life. If its so boring, dont read it. And as for responding, ah, there we go, its so boring you had to respond. Sad. Just because you are an AGW proponent you try to discredit and dissuade me by calling my posts boring, whereas in fact, you want to refute them by answering. Probably because you are scared that the argument I make is actually convincing you that AGW is an unproved, and suspect theory.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/#more-192[^] "The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere...the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states. "
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I remember the blanket of smog
NO2 SO2 all pollutants, O3 only a pollutant low in the atmosphere. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary part of life. If its so boring, dont read it. And as for responding, ah, there we go, its so boring you had to respond. Sad. Just because you are an AGW proponent you try to discredit and dissuade me by calling my posts boring, whereas in fact, you want to refute them by answering. Probably because you are scared that the argument I make is actually convincing you that AGW is an unproved, and suspect theory.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
I'm not a proponent. I'm not convinced yet on the whole issue. I just think its a bit alarming that you go to such lengths to ram down the idea of conspiracy down the soapbox throat. Whatever. And, I'm responding to your zealot fever regarding it, not the subject itself. This aspect I don't find boring which is why I'm replying again. I would like to understand though, why this has your panties in a bunch. My point regarding smog, is that irrespective of the GW debate, having better air to breathe is worth the price of admission. Nothing to do with climate. Just air quality. I hope you can see the difference. Else, if you classify me as a proponent and continue the conspiracy mantra, then you have fallen victim to what you're complaining about. So, nice try. I was convinced before you ever posted anything on the subject that it is unproved and theory. I don't classify it as suspect, but that's a minor point. But you aren't convincing me that it should be the crusade you seem to promoting.
This statement was never false.
-
I'm not a proponent. I'm not convinced yet on the whole issue. I just think its a bit alarming that you go to such lengths to ram down the idea of conspiracy down the soapbox throat. Whatever. And, I'm responding to your zealot fever regarding it, not the subject itself. This aspect I don't find boring which is why I'm replying again. I would like to understand though, why this has your panties in a bunch. My point regarding smog, is that irrespective of the GW debate, having better air to breathe is worth the price of admission. Nothing to do with climate. Just air quality. I hope you can see the difference. Else, if you classify me as a proponent and continue the conspiracy mantra, then you have fallen victim to what you're complaining about. So, nice try. I was convinced before you ever posted anything on the subject that it is unproved and theory. I don't classify it as suspect, but that's a minor point. But you aren't convincing me that it should be the crusade you seem to promoting.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I'm responding to your zealot fever
Which is a response to the crap I see in the media about 'Carbon Footprints', and the likely taxes bought in just to appease the guilt conciousnesses of middle class liberals.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I hope you can see the difference
Of course I can, I am an environmentalist in many respects: we eat organic, cook all our food, dont use alluminium or non stick pans, we recycle as much as we can. But CO2 has been prooved to be beneficial for the planet, and hasnt been prooved to be detrimental.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
crusade you seem to promoting
This is the soapbox after al1!
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Sorry, .75 %, but it doesnt affect the final figure. 1) The IPCC is stating a 0.8 `C temperature rise in 100 years. 2) As stated, _if_ greenhouse gasses are only responsible for 25% of the warming, then a 20% reduction in CO2 will have a .75% impact on temperature. And that is 0.0075 times 0.8, which gives 0.006 `C. On to your other points: 1) What other factors do you think there are in global warming and what effect they have? 2)Sources: IPCC for the temperature rise and the relative composition of greenhouse gasses in terms of effectiveness. 3) Is fragility defined as 'Coping with large temperature fluctuations and surviving'?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
- I rule at pong, you better stop there... ;) 2) Sorry, I am not familiar with that abbreviation. (no offense, I really just don't know what that means) Can you write it out? 3) No, fragility is defined as "historically has been killing off the most of its inhabitants when its climate changed".
Cheers, Sebastian -- Contra vim mortem non est medicamen in hortem.
-
- I rule at pong, you better stop there... ;) 2) Sorry, I am not familiar with that abbreviation. (no offense, I really just don't know what that means) Can you write it out? 3) No, fragility is defined as "historically has been killing off the most of its inhabitants when its climate changed".
Cheers, Sebastian -- Contra vim mortem non est medicamen in hortem.
IPCC? You never heard of them? I dont see how you can debate climate change theory if you havent heard of them. If fragility is so defined then the earth is not fragile, and neither is life. Human ego might well be though.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I'm responding to your zealot fever
Which is a response to the crap I see in the media about 'Carbon Footprints', and the likely taxes bought in just to appease the guilt conciousnesses of middle class liberals.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I hope you can see the difference
Of course I can, I am an environmentalist in many respects: we eat organic, cook all our food, dont use alluminium or non stick pans, we recycle as much as we can. But CO2 has been prooved to be beneficial for the planet, and hasnt been prooved to be detrimental.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
crusade you seem to promoting
This is the soapbox after al1!
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
This is the soapbox after al1!
Touche...
This statement was never false.
-
IPCC? You never heard of them? I dont see how you can debate climate change theory if you havent heard of them. If fragility is so defined then the earth is not fragile, and neither is life. Human ego might well be though.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
I have heard of the "Internationaler Ausschuss für Klimaänderungen", which probably is what you abbreviate as IPCC. You actually proved that you cannot think an INCH ahead, or you would have realized that the reason for my asking was my not being a native speaker of English. You could have provided me with the full term instead of making fun of me. That would have prevented me from easily ridiculing you in front of thousands of people for being an ignorant smart-ass.
-
I have heard of the "Internationaler Ausschuss für Klimaänderungen", which probably is what you abbreviate as IPCC. You actually proved that you cannot think an INCH ahead, or you would have realized that the reason for my asking was my not being a native speaker of English. You could have provided me with the full term instead of making fun of me. That would have prevented me from easily ridiculing you in front of thousands of people for being an ignorant smart-ass.
Sebastian Schneider wrote:
have heard of the "Internationaler Ausschuss für Klimaänderungen", which probably is what you abbreviate as IPCC. You actually proved that you cannot think an INCH ahead, or you would have realized that the reason for my asking was my not being a native speaker of English. You could have provided me with the full term instead of making fun of me. That would have prevented me from easily ridiculing you in front of thousands of people for being an ignorant smart-ass.
Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change, a UN (NOTE UN) controlled organisation. http://www.ipcc.ch/[^] I am amazed anyone who has an interest in climate change hasnt heard of them, they are the people behind the infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph used in Gores film for example.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception