And POOF, it was gone....

[SSDD]

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!

The CO2 you exhale is just giving back the carbon your food stuff, while growing, extracted from the air. Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away, and thus adds to the CO2 in the air. That's what the term "excess" in Crick's definition means.

How does it feel if it turns out you've been laughing (out loud) at your own ignorance and incomprehension? (I, for one, found it very funny.) Our ecosystem, our very life depend on the presence of necessary ingredients in just the right dose, and too much, or too little, of most is detrimental, which is when even essentials turn into, for lack of a better word, pollutants. Heck, without water we don't survive. Drink eight or ten liters of the stuff, and you're dead.

Of course all that depends on there actually being a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said...you ran away when challenged to say what you think it says...what's the matter guy?....afraid of proving that you can't read even a basic equation?.....

And if you can't read such a simple equation and say what it means...exactly what credibility does that lend you in talking about a greenhouse effect that is based on terribly flawed physics?

 

[Olde Europe]

I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said.

I see, you still can't correctly interpret the equation you've been hyperventilating about for about a week, and you're further compounding your embarrassment by spreading it to non-pertinent threads. Good job exposing yourself for what you are, Same Shit, Different Day.

 

[SSDD]

I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said.

I see, you still can't correctly interpret the equation you've been hyperventilating about for about a week, and you're further compounding your embarrassment by spreading it to non-pertinent threads. Good job exposing yourself for what you are, Same Shit, Different Day.

I see that you are still talking out of your ass and don't have the first clue as to what the equation says.....obviously the topic is waaaaaaayyyyy over your head even though it is fairly easy math....so lets hear it...and it is pertinent...you were just explaining how CO2 and the greenhouse effect combine to spell disaster for us...so the greenhouse effect is certainly pertinent...and if you are such an authority on the greenhouse effect, that you feel comfortable lecturing on it..then surely you can tell us what the equation at the heart of the description of said greenhouse effect says....so lets hear it....or lets hear another mewling excuse as to why you won't say what you think the equation is saying....

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K

 

[Olde Europe]

I see that you are still talking out of your ass and don't have the first clue as to what the equation says.

Obviously. And you then move on to demand I explain the equation to you. You've gone to great lengths to insult all who understood the equation, and pranced around cock-certain you got it right, even while you didn't, and after a week of chasing that equation through at least three different threads, you still can't figure it out.

Look, you never listen, and thus you learn nothing, and therefore debating you is like erecting a monument to pointlessness, as I pointed out elsewhere. All there's left now is to expose you for the troll and ignoramus you are, although I have to admit you're making a better job of it than I could hope to do. By all means, Same Shit, Different Day, please proceed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!

The CO2 you exhale is just giving back the carbon your food stuff, while growing, extracted from the air. Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away, and thus adds to the CO2 in the air. That's what the term "excess" in Crick's definition means.

How does it feel if it turns out you've been laughing (out loud) at your own ignorance and incomprehension? (I, for one, found it very funny.) Our ecosystem, our very life depend on the presence of necessary ingredients in just the right dose, and too much, or too little, of most is detrimental, which is when even essentials turn into, for lack of a better word, pollutants. Heck, without water we don't survive. Drink eight or ten liters of the stuff, and you're dead.

The CO2 you exhale is just giving back the carbon your food stuff, while growing, extracted from the air.

Yup, used to be in the air, then in a plant, then back in the air.

Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away

So coal was carbon that used to be in the air, then in a plant, than back in the air.

pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away

Carbon that used to be in the air is in the air again.

That's what the term "excess" in Crick's definition means.

Excess? Because 280 ppm is the correct amount? Why?

Our ecosystem, our very life depend on the presence of necessary ingredients in just the right dose,

Cool. What's the right dose? How do you know? What happened in the past when the "dose" was higher?

 

[Olde Europe]

Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away

So coal was carbon that used to be in the air, then in a plant, than back in the air.

So, you have to distort my meaning to make a point? Isn't that a bit sleazy, Toddster? Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions. That's not rocket science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away

So coal was carbon that used to be in the air, then in a plant, than back in the air.

So, you have to distort my meaning to make a point? Isn't that a bit sleazy, Toddster? Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions. That's not rocket science.

So, you have to distort my meaning to make a point?

Your point was that carbon that was in the air months ago is safe to release but carbon that was in the air millions of years ago is dangerous.

When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?

 

[Olde Europe]

When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?

Read carefully, and for comprehension this time, okay?

"Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions."​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?

Read carefully, and for comprehension this time, okay?

"Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions."​

Yup, just awful.

 

[westwall]

Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away

So coal was carbon that used to be in the air, then in a plant, than back in the air.

So, you have to distort my meaning to make a point? Isn't that a bit sleazy, Toddster? Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions. That's not rocket science.

How is his point distorted? It is absolutely factual. You are the person resorting to religious analogy to vilify a gas that is the fundamental building block of life on this planet. It is you who has determined that 280 ppm is a somehow magical number that MUST NOT BE CROSSED. The history of this planet shows the majority of the time the CO2 concentrations have been much higher. Thus, a thinking person would infer that THAT is the normal level. What we are experiencing now is the abnormal.

That's how science works.

 

[westwall]

When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?

Read carefully, and for comprehension this time, okay?

"Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions."​

Your entire statement here has not a single bit of factual data to support it. Not one.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yup, just awful.

I get the impression you're still not quite up to speed. So, just a few observations:

First, the earth's ecosystems worked, obviously, during the hundreds of millions of years, except for prior instances of Great Extinctions. We wouldn't want to bring about one of these events, would we?

Second: Of course, some forms of life would survive even significantly warmer conditions. The question is, would these conditions support humankind? That is in doubt, because our ecosystem is ill-adapted to those conditions, and we see species die out at an unprecedented pace (except for Great Extinctions). These species may not all be dying out because of climate change but because of increasing human land use (etc.), but remember: ecosystems are many closely interacting parts that need to fit together to function properly, and we never know in advance which is the last pillar supporting that system before it collapses. So, the cautionary principle would suggest we preserve as many pillars (species, environmental circumstances) as possible to keep these systems healthy and functioning properly.

Third: Just as one thing heading our way: 50% of our oxygen in the air is actually produced by plankton in the oceans. Scientists tell us that it's starting to die off because increasingly acidic oceans are beginning to dissolve the plankton shells, and not only may we have to learn to make do with less oxygen, but the food chain in the ocean collapses. So, what then?

Yours is just a variant of, "The earth's climate has always been changing, so what, me worry?" That's a failing argument, and for quite obvious reasons. At the most basic form, it's this: A changing climate is bad news for ecosystems not adapted to the climate we are bringing about.

 

[Olde Europe]

How is his point distorted? It is absolutely factual.

Is it? FFs accumulated over hundreds of millions of years. So, that carbon wasn't in the air all at the same time, say, in just a few hundred years, as we're in the process of doing. So, no, that's not the same (as he suggested) as the life cycle of growing crops, eating them, and exhaling the carbon we've digested, your insisting on "absolutely" notwithstanding. 280ppm of CO2 in the air is known to support life as we know it. Doubling that results in huge changes, the magnitude thereof we just begin to fathom, but we already know - well, those informing themselves know - for many parts of the world these changes will be devastating. Obviously, sloppy thinkers and ignoramuses can't be bothered.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, just awful.

I get the impression you're still not quite up to speed. So, just a few observations:
First, the earth's ecosystems worked, obviously, during the hundreds of millions of years, except for prior instances of Great Extinctions. We wouldn't want to bring about one of these events, would we?

Second: Of course, some forms of life would survive even significantly warmer conditions. The question is, would these conditions support humankind? That is in doubt, because our ecosystem is ill-adapted to those conditions, and we see species die out at an unprecedented pace (except for Great Extinctions). These species may not all be dying out because of climate change but because of increasing human land use (etc.), but remember: ecosystems are many closely interacting parts that need to fit together to function properly, and we never know in advance which is the last pillar supporting that system before it collapses. So, the cautionary principle would suggest we preserve as many pillars (species, environmental circumstances) as possible to keep these systems healthy and functioning properly.

Third: Just as one thing heading our way: 50% of our oxygen in the air is actually produced by plankton in the oceans. Scientists tell us that it's starting to die off because increasingly acidic oceans are beginning to dissolve the plankton shells, and not only may we have to learn to make do with less oxygen, but the food chain in the ocean collapses. So, what then?

Yours is just a variant of, "The earth's climate has always been changing, so what, me worry?" That's a failing argument, and for quite obvious reasons. At the most basic form, it's this: A changing climate is bad news for ecosystems not adapted to the climate we are bringing about.

I get the impression you're still not quite up to speed.

I'm up to speed. If we keep the carbon in the ground, we live. If we extract and burn it, we're doomed.
Is that it?

First, the earth's ecosystems worked, obviously, during the hundreds of millions of years, except for prior instances of Great Extinctions. We wouldn't want to bring about one of these events, would we?

If we burn coal we'll cause a Great Extinction? What would that take? 500 ppm? 550 ppm? More?
Be as specific as you can.

Second: Of course, some forms of life would survive even significantly warmer conditions. The question is, would these conditions support humankind?

How did mankind do during previous colder periods? During previous warmer periods?

50% of our oxygen in the air is actually produced by plankton in the oceans. Scientists tell us that it's starting to die off because increasingly acidic oceans are beginning to dissolve the plankton shells

Sounds scary!!!
When CO2 levels were 500 ppm, did all the plankton die off?
Did it die off at 1000 ppm? What about at 6000 ppm?

Yours is just a variant of, "The earth's climate has always been changing, so what, me worry?"

Almost. Closer to, "How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to ensure the climate never changes?"
How will we know we've succeeded?

 

[westwall]

How is his point distorted? It is absolutely factual.

Is it? FFs accumulated over hundreds of millions of years. So, that carbon wasn't in the air all at the same time, say, in just a few hundred years, as we're in the process of doing. So, no, that's not the same (as he suggested) as the life cycle of growing crops, eating them, and exhaling the carbon we've digested, your insisting on "absolutely" notwithstanding. 280ppm of CO2 in the air is known to support life as we know it. Doubling that results in huge changes, the magnitude thereof we just begin to fathom, but we already know - well, those informing themselves know - for many parts of the world these changes will be devastating. Obviously, sloppy thinkers and ignoramuses can't be bothered.

CO2 is locked in an endless cycle. There is no "just right" amount. When it is abundant we get lots of huge plants, fauna have it easy and life is good for everything on the planet. When CO2 is sequestered away, plants are small, fauna fights for limited resources and all life is harder. That is a scientific, and historical fact. The only reason why you claim that abundant CO2 is bad is so you can make money off of its control. All the while the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that mankind produces less than 5% of the entire global budget of CO2. And as they become aware of that fact, your stranglehold on their pocketbooks will diminish. As it should.

 

[SSDD]

Obviously. And you then move on to demand I explain the equation to you.

Did you not make the claim that I had terribly misinterpreted the equation?...does that not imply that you understand it?...and now you admit that you don't have a clue...

You've gone to great lengths to insult all who understood the equation, and pranced around cock-certain you got it right, even while you didn't, and after a week of chasing that equation through at least three different threads, you still can't figure it out.

In case you didn't notice, those who you think understood the equation didn't even know where the temperatures were coming from...they don't know how to plug numbers into the Stefan Boltzman equation and convert radiation of X wm2 into a radiating temperature...in short, they don't have the first idea of even where the numbers come from...much less what the equation is saying..

 

[Wuwei]

In case you didn't notice, those who you think understood the equation didn't even know where the temperatures were coming from...they don't know how to plug numbers into the Stefan Boltzman equation and convert radiation of X wm2 into a radiating temperature...in short, they don't have the first idea of even where the numbers come from...much less what the equation is saying..

That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.

 

[jc456]

I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said.

I see, you still can't correctly interpret the equation you've been hyperventilating about for about a week, and you're further compounding your embarrassment by spreading it to non-pertinent threads. Good job exposing yourself for what you are, Same Shit, Different Day.

then why is adding CO2 to the atmosphere bad as crick states?

 

[jc456]

In case you didn't notice, those who you think understood the equation didn't even know where the temperatures were coming from...they don't know how to plug numbers into the Stefan Boltzman equation and convert radiation of X wm2 into a radiating temperature...in short, they don't have the first idea of even where the numbers come from...much less what the equation is saying..

That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.

it's not his computation. Please for fk sake get it right. It was from a link at a university citing it as an equation to find surface temps. By old socks. How is it his when most all of us you've been arguing with have stated it came from the link at the university? Are you just trying to be an a-hole?

 

[Olde Europe]

The only reason why you claim that abundant CO2 is bad is so you can make money off of its control.

I? I am making money off carbon control? Can you point me to the bank account of mine where that windfall accrues? I'd really like to know.

All the while the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that mankind produces less than 5% of the entire global budget of CO2.

What does that prove? Let me tell you, nothing at all. During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was in balance, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away. Humankind changed that, not only by burning FFs, but also by greatly reducing carbon sinks, such as rain forests, which results in the exploding CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It's like a bath tub that loses just as much water as is added. Increase the water flow just a little, just 5%, and it will eventually flow over. And that's not even accounting for the tipping points towards which we're heading, such as the evaporation of the methane deposits in the Siberian permafrost or in the northern oceans, which might cause run-away, disproportionate climate change. You know all that, don't you? But still, in order to uphold your paranoid, "They are after our pocketbooks! They're into controlling the population!", you have to play SSDD.