So you still don't understand. It has nothing to do with the molecules being different. Vintage 124nic! :rofl2:

You just got thoroughly schooled by Hurricane...who in fact has a Ph.D in chemistry compared to your claim of a masters in science....and you can't help but try to save what little face you have left by telling him that he doesn't know what he is talking about!!!

How pathetic.

As I said, it has nothing to do with differences in the molecules, cause as you said they are not acting differently. Can you not read?

But there is a difference. Still can't figure it out (even after it's been explained)?

No please educate me how identical CO2 from two different sources defy the laws of thermodynamics and act different with respect to ghg? One caveat...it has to occur on Earth!

But a few percent reduction in the GROWTH of CO2 is not going to solve the problem.

I completely agree that a reduction in CO2 is not going to solve a cyclic variation in Earth's climate.

I'm enjoying watching nic get his ass handed to him.

Vintage 124nic! :rofl2:

You just got thoroughly schooled by Hurricane...who in fact has a Ph.D in chemistry compared to your claim of a masters in science....and you can't help but try to save what little face you have left by telling him that he doesn't know what he is talking about!!!

How pathetic.As if the key to solving its mystery is to understand its chemical reactions.

What is pathetic is to invoke degrees. What is next, to compare manhoods?

As if the key to solving its mystery is to understand its chemical reactions.

What is pathetic is to invoke degrees. What is next, to compare manhoods?

Step 1) Know what the fark you're talking about when you step into a conversation.

Step 2) Wipe the egg off your face - again.

Step 1) Know what the fark you're talking about when you step into a conversation.

Step 2) Wipe the egg off your face - again.Clearly you must have a "PhD" in math.

:lol:

(Psst: why even any semblance of arguments? Why not just declare that you have embarrassed us? Or is that that we embarrass ourselves?)

As if the key to solving its mystery is to understand its chemical reactions.

What is pathetic is to invoke degrees. What is next, to compare manhoods?

I didn't bring it up to prop myself up. I don't have a degree in cycling, boxing, college football, history, etc., but I feel I can defend myself discussing them with anyone. My issue for bringing up the degree is that Nic has established several times that no one can in the podium can argue against climatologist in the field because they don't have PhD. So hence when we got on the topic of chemisty, I just thought I would throw back some of his logic towards him. Hence the old saying, live by the sword, die by the sword. So either Nic has no authority to debate me on Chemistry because he has a lesser degree or intellect and critical thinking about any topic is dependent on the person and not the degree...my stance is on the latter. I graduated with several Chinese students who bombed their defense but were passed because their advisor was the Dean and no one would stand up to them. So I know as many PhD chemist who I would never hire and complained about it to the their graduate committee members. If I had 100 PhD chemist in a room and 100 B.S. Chemist in another room, I can guarantee that the PhD room would outperform the BS room with respect to a chemistry related issue. However, I can also guarantee 10-30 in that BS room would be far superior to 10-30 in the PhD room. So while a higher degree helps your "credentials", it is far from an absolute by any means.

Lastly, i would add that graduate school was far harder 20 years ago than it is today and will continue to get easier 20 years from now so the degree has lost some weight as we dumb down people and treat it as a degree mill rather than a higher institute of learning.

I didn't bring it up to prop myself up. I don't have a degree in cycling, boxing, college football, history, etc., but I feel I can defend myself discussing them with anyone. My issue for bringing up the degree is that Nic has established several times that no one can in the podium can argue against climatologist in the field because they don't have PhD. So hence when we got on the topic of chemisty, I just thought I would throw back some of his logic towards him. Hence the old saying, live by the sword, die by the sword. So either Nic has no authority to debate me on Chemistry because he has a lesser degree or intellect and critical thinking about any topic is dependent on the person and not the degree...my stance is on the latter. I graduated with several Chinese students who bombed their defense but were passed because their advisor was the Dean and no one would stand up to them. So I know as many PhD chemist who I would never hire and complained about it to the their graduate committee members. If I had 100 PhD chemist in a room and 100 B.S. Chemist in another room, I can guarantee that the PhD room would outperform the BS room with respect to a chemistry related issue. However, I can also guarantee 10-30 in that BS room would be far superior to 10-30 in the PhD room. So while a higher degree helps your "credentials", it is far from an absolute by any means.

Lastly, i would add that graduate school was far harder 20 years ago than it is today and will continue to get easier 20 years from now so the degree has lost some weight as we dumb down people and treat it as a degree mill rather than a higher institute of learning.I cannot disagree -- I think even agree -- with the bold part.

My comment was not directed at you at all. My comment was directed at a cheerleader who would demean someone because they have a "lesser" degree. (I wonder what degree the cheerleader has.) I have a lot of respect for academic degrees but correct me if I am wrong.....most chemists, even PhD, do not necessarily know much about climate and climatology.

I cannot disagree -- I think even agree -- with the bold part.

My comment was not directed at you at all. My comment was directed at a cheerleader who would demean someone because they have a "lesser" degree. (I wonder what degree the cheerleader has.) I have a lot of respect for academic degrees but correct me if I am wrong.....most chemists, even PhD, do not necessarily know much about climate and climatology.

I don't think he was cheerleading. He was just rubbing it in because Nic made such a big issue about climatologist having PhDs (several times) and hence for anyone against MMGW to disagree with them without and equivalent degree was proposterous. Hence Nic was put in a situation that pitted him against the rationale in one of his many posts and he was just serving up some crow.

Alternatively, I really value fidelity and am defending in another post. If I were caught cheating, I am sure many I am debating with would quickly throw it back in my face. That ultimately is what coulditbeSatan was doing to Nic.

Clearly you must have a "PhD" in math.

:lol:

(Psst: why even any semblance of arguments? Why not just declare that you have embarrassed us? Or is that that we embarrass ourselves?)Hurricane already handled this. You stepped in and got sh!t on your shoe. Now you insist on stinking up the place. Nic applied the degrees standard since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about and this wreaks havoc with you because your insults are misdirected.

...made such a big issue about climatologist having PhDs (several times) and hence for anyone against MMGW to disagree with them without and equivalent degree was proposterous. Any response to this comment?

"correct me if I am wrong.....most chemists, even PhD, do not necessarily know much about climate and climatology."

I'm enjoying watching nic get his ass handed to him.

Since this is The Podium, I can't quite tell if you folks don't know that 'Cane and 'Nic are arguing different points (talking across) one another, or whether you understand the unrelated arguments and you're just giving him a hard time. Just in case anyone wants to come to an understanding...

'Cane is explaining that there is no effective difference in terms of the chemical properties of CO2 from biological processes and that released by burning fossil fuels. This is true, but does not actually address what 'Nic was trying to explain.

What 'Nic was explaining is that biological CO2 is a normal part of life on earth- part of an active lifecycle. There is ebb and flow between species, but the net abundance of life on Earth is essentially at equilibrium. That is to say that biological sources are neither increasing nor decreasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere- at least to any significant degree. One piece goes out while another piece goes in, and the net amount is pretty stable.

What is different about CO2 from fossil fuels is that it is not CO2 that is currently part of this established equilibrium- not from the active lifecycle. It is CO2 that was sequestered deep in the Earth, and we dig it up and release it into the atmosphere all at once. In this manner, CO2 from fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above and beyond what is available at the "natural" equilibrium.

Make sense? Either way, carry on.

Since this is The Podium, I can't quite tell if you folks don't know that 'Cane and 'Nic are arguing different points (talking across) one another, or whether you understand the unrelated arguments and you're just giving him a hard time. Just in case anyone wants to come to an understanding...

'Cane is explaining that there is no effective difference in terms of the chemical properties of CO2 from biological processes and that released by burning fossil fuels. This is true, but does is not actually arguing against what 'Nic was trying to explain.

What 'Nic was explaining is that biological CO2 is a normal part of life on earth- part of an active lifecycle. There is ebb and flow between species, but the net abundance of life on Earth is essentially at equilibrium. That is to say that biological sources are neither increasing nor decreasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. One piece goes out while another piece goes in, and the net amount is pretty stable.

What is different about CO2 from fossil fuels is that it is not CO2 that was currently part of this established equilibrium- not from the active lifecycle. It is CO2 that was sequestered deep in the Earth, and we dig it up and release it into the atmosphere all at once. In this manner, CO2 from fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above and beyond what is available at the "natural" equilibrium.

Make sense? Either way, carry on.Well put.

This has been clear to those of us who have no hidden agenda ;), but if you are in the business of cheer-leading and kissing peoples' behind, you will continue playing dumb so that you can merely declare that your interlocutors have "embarrassed" themselves.

Since this is The Podium, I can't quite tell if you folks don't know that 'Cane and 'Nic are arguing different points (talking across) one another, or whether you understand the unrelated arguments and you're just giving him a hard time. Just in case anyone wants to come to an understanding...

'Cane is explaining that there is no effective difference in terms of the chemical properties of CO2 from biological processes and that released by burning fossil fuels. This is true, but does not actually address what 'Nic was trying to explain.

What 'Nic was explaining is that biological CO2 is a normal part of life on earth- part of an active lifecycle. There is ebb and flow between species, but the net abundance of life on Earth is essentially at equilibrium. That is to say that biological sources are neither increasing nor decreasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere- at least to any significant degree. One piece goes out while another piece goes in, and the net amount is pretty stable.

What is different about CO2 from fossil fuels is that it is not CO2 that is currently part of this established equilibrium- not from the active lifecycle. It is CO2 that was sequestered deep in the Earth, and we dig it up and release it into the atmosphere all at once. In this manner, CO2 from fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above and beyond what is available at the "natural" equilibrium.

Make sense? Either way, carry on.

Exactly. This has been explained at least once in this very thread and recently.

And I stated outright that it has nothing to do with a difference between the molecules, at least twice.

I'll state it simply, once again. Fossil fuel CO2 increases the concentration in the atmosphere while biological CO2 does not, cause for the most part, biological CO2 came from plants that removed it from the atmosphere in the last year.

But I won't bet 'cane and satan will even understand after these two additional explanations.

It is really beyond me how 'cane keeps missing this distinction. I understand why his cheerleader does.

Now whose face is the egg on?

IMHO the planet is benefiting from human releases of CO2 in a controlled fashion (and sometimes accidental). CO2 will find its way to the biosphere one way or another, be it another Krakatoa or a massive fissure of the earth's crust (crack) that releases rancid gobs of goo. Synthesized poisons and the tinkering of genetic code for greed and profit are a greater threat to all species than the rise and fall of temps.

Life on this planet has always adapted to climate change, what we cannot afford is a breakdown in the 'code' given to us by evolution. Resist the siren song of the 'Climate Changenistas' as they are creating a smoke screen for the likes of Dow Chemical and Monsanto.

Grab whatever natural fuel you can burn and ignite it.... In doing so you will prevent great suffering to indigenous tribes living on some island in the middle of an ocean. Don't stop there, petition the Nobel committee to revoke Al Gore's (and Obama's) Nobel 'prizes', they are frauds.

IMHO the planet is benefiting from human releases of CO2 in a controlled fashion (and sometimes accidental). CO2 will find its way to the biosphere one way or another, be it another Krakatoa or a massive fissure of the earth's crust (crack) that releases rancid gobs of goo. Synthesized poisons and the tinkering of genetic code for greed and profit are a greater threat to all species than the rise and fall of temps.

Life on this planet has always adapted to climate change, what we cannot afford is a breakdown in the 'code' given to us by evolution. Resist the siren song of the 'Climate Changenistas' as they are creating a smoke screen for the likes of Dow Chemical and Monsanto.

Grab whatever natural fuel you can burn and ignite it.... In doing so you will prevent great suffering to indigenous tribes living on some island in the middle of an ocean. Don't stop there, petition the Nobel committee to revoke Al Gore's (and Obama's) Nobel 'prizes', they are frauds.

Based on what? You think you've falsified MMGW?

If you really did, there's a Nobel prize in it for you. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

IMHO the planet is benefiting from human releases of CO2 in a controlled fashion (and sometimes accidental). CO2 will find its way to the biosphere one way or another, be it another Krakatoa or a massive fissure of the earth's crust (crack) that releases rancid gobs of goo. Synthesized poisons and the tinkering of genetic code for greed and profit are a greater threat to all species than the rise and fall of temps.But there is an important nuance here (which nic also has mentioned). Just about the only way CO2 from oil can find itself to the atmosphere is for man to extract from underground and then burn it.

But there is an important nuance here (which nic also has mentioned). Just about the only way CO2 from oil can find itself to the atmosphere is for man to extract from underground and then burn it.

Hey, I didn't say that.

In ancient history (375M years ago) there were mega-volcanoes which pumped large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And as any good conservative knows, that proves that man is not causing GW, cause it's happened naturally in the past. :rolleyes:

Any response to this comment?

"correct me if I am wrong.....most chemists, even PhD, do not necessarily know much about climate and climatology."

What is there to reply to? Physicists and physical chemisty is the root of all science. Climatology isn't some elemental branch of science, it all comes down to thermodynamics so your point couldn't be further from the truth. I think if anything, a true physical chemist or physicist (or ChemE) would be the one person who would truly the "science" behind climatology. But the real issue is the politics behind climatology....and that is ultimately what is being debated. MMGW is a hypothesis pure and simple. There are serious flaws in the data and means by which the data is collected. I have argued that aspect of the science and I deal with people who focus on some theoretical basis instead of issues with the means by which the data is collected itself. I am not going to sit here and argue experimental science with theoretical science wanna-be's. fark any model...the key is the data itself...and there are some serious flaws with the way it is collected and then "tweaked".


Since this is The Podium, I can't quite tell if you folks don't know that 'Cane and 'Nic are arguing different points (talking across) one another, or whether you understand the unrelated arguments and you're just giving him a hard time. Just in case anyone wants to come to an understanding...

'Cane is explaining that there is no effective difference in terms of the chemical properties of CO2 from biological processes and that released by burning fossil fuels. This is true, but does not actually address what 'Nic was trying to explain.

What 'Nic was explaining is that biological CO2 is a normal part of life on earth- part of an active lifecycle. There is ebb and flow between species, but the net abundance of life on Earth is essentially at equilibrium. That is to say that biological sources are neither increasing nor decreasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere- at least to any significant degree. One piece goes out while another piece goes in, and the net amount is pretty stable.

What is different about CO2 from fossil fuels is that it is not CO2 that is currently part of this established equilibrium- not from the active lifecycle. It is CO2 that was sequestered deep in the Earth, and we dig it up and release it into the atmosphere all at once. In this manner, CO2 from fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above and beyond what is available at the "natural" equilibrium.

Make sense? Either way, carry on.
Exactly. This has been explained at least once in this very thread and recently.

And I stated outright that it has nothing to do with a difference between the molecules, at least twice.

I'll state it simply, once again. Fossil fuel CO2 increases the concentration in the atmosphere while biological CO2 does not, cause for the most part, biological CO2 came from plants that removed it from the atmosphere in the last year.

But I won't bet 'cane and satan will even understand after these two additional explanations.

It is really beyond me how 'cane keeps missing this distinction. I understand why his cheerleader does.

Now whose face is the egg on?

To say there is some equilibrium between biological CO2 is completely false. The population had quadrupled in the past 100 years. To pretend that increasing the population by 4x has no effect on the amount of CO2 being exhaled is assinine. On The average weight of humans has increased 25-30% in that time. It isn't as if we are in some cyclic equilibrium with plant life and for every molecule of CO2 exhaled, plants convert it to O2. The fact is that there are a lot more people and a lot more obese people which contribute to the amount of CO2 being produced. It isn't a static figure as you allude to but an increasing concentration dependent on a larger concentration of CO2 producing humans. Sorry Nic, but you have no comprehension of basic sciences. To argue that the mole fraction CO2 produced by human respiration is somehow in equilibrium to what is currently present is complete bullshit.

To say there is some equilibrium between biological CO2 is completely false. The population had quadrupled in the past 100 years. To pretend that increasing the population by 4x has no effect on the amount of CO2 being exhaled is assinine. On The average weight of humans has increased 25-30% in that time. It isn't as if we are in some cyclic equilibrium with plant life and for every molecule of CO2 exhaled, plants convert it to O2. The fact is that there are a lot more people and a lot more obese people which contribute to the amount of CO2 being produced. It isn't a static figure as you allude to but an increasing concentration dependent on a larger concentration of CO2 producing humans. Sorry Nic, but you have no comprehension of basic sciences. To argue that the mole fraction CO2 produced by human respiration is somehow in equilibrium to what is currently present is complete bullshit.

Hurricane, I really think you're off on this point if I'm right in interpreting that you think human's breathing out CO2 is relevant to the discussion. The amount human's breathe out is negligible in comparison to the amount produced by fossil fuels. 6 billion people sounds like a lot, but in terms of biological CO2 it isn't. That's because human biomass is quite small compared to the biomass of many other forms of life that produce CO2.

You're off by many orders of magnitude.

The key point is that the carbon human's breath out come from plants that would just get consumed by something else anyway. It's the short term carbon cycle. Humans are doing nothing with this cycle that hasn't been done by countless other species over human history. What humans are doing that is NEW is that we're tapping the long term carbon cycle. Usually that carbon stays buried for hundreds of millions of years and is released slowly over that time scale. We're burning huge amounts in decades and sending it up into the air.

Quick analogy I thought up: Imagine some human's swimming in a lake. They can drink the water and it won't make much of any difference to the water level of the lake (we'll just piss back into the lake and the amount we drink is tiny in relation to the size of the lake anyway). But, if we drill beneath the lake and hit an artesian aquifer, that will most definitely alter the water level. We'd be turning a relatively closed system into a relatively open system by tapping into that huge, hidden reserve. Ducks and many other species can drink and piss out lake water too. But they can't drill.

What is there to reply to? Physicists and physical chemisty is the root of all science. Climatology isn't some elemental branch of science, it all comes down to thermodynamics so your point couldn't be further from the truth. I think if anything, a true physical chemist or physicist (or ChemE) would be the one person who would truly the "science" behind climatology. But the real issue is the politics behind climatology....and that is ultimately what is being debated. MMGW is a hypothesis pure and simple. There are serious flaws in the data and means by which the data is collected. I have argued that aspect of the science and I deal with people who focus on some theoretical basis instead of issues with the means by which the data is collected itself. I am not going to sit here and argue experimental science with theoretical science wanna-be's. fark any model...the key is the data itself...and there are some serious flaws with the way it is collected and then "tweaked".Below is a list of US universities that offer at least one PhD-level program in a field most related to climate research.

Take one example:

University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA)
Atmospheric Science: BS MS, PhD

I say a UCLA PhD in Atmospheric Science knows way more about Man-Made Climate Change (MMCC) than a UCLA PhD in Physics, Chemistry, or Physical-Chemistry.

To even imply that so many prestigious universities are offering PhD programs in a bogus field (I am not saying that YOU have made that claim) is preposterous.

-------------

University of Alaska – Fairbanks
Atmospheric Science: MS, PhD

University of Alabama – Huntsville
Atmospheric Science: MS, PhD

University of Arizona
Atmospheric Science: MS, PhD

Naval Postgraduate School
Physical Oceanography: MS, PhD

University of California-Davis
Atmospheric Science: BS, MS, PhD

University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA)
Atmospheric Science: BS MS, PhD

University of Colorado – Boulder
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences: BS (minor), MS, PhD

Florida Institute of Technology
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD
Environmental Science: BS, MS, PhD
Oceanography: BS, MS, PhD

Florida State University
Meteorology: BS, minor, MS, PhD

University of Miami
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD

Georgia Institute of Technology
Earth and Atmospheric Science: BS, MS, PhD

University of Hawaii
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD

Iowa State University
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD

University of Chicago
The Department of the Geophysical Sciences: BA, BS, MS, PhD

University of Illinois
Atmospheric Science: Undergraduate: Individual Plan of Study or a Minor Graduate: MS, PhD

Indiana University
Geography: Atmospheric Science: BA, BS, MA, MS, PhD

Purdue University
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences: BS, MS, PhD

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD
Climate: BS, MS, PhD

University of Maryland
Meteorology: MS, PhD. Undergraduate minor in meteorology available.

University of Michigan
Atmospheric Science: BS, MS, PhD

Saint Louis University
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD

University of Missouri – Columbia
Atmospheric Science: BS, MS, PhD

University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Meteorology: BS
Geosciences: MS, PhD

Rutgers University
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD

University of Nevada, Reno
Atmospheric Science: MS, PhD

Cornell University
Atmospheric Sciences: BS, MS, PhD

State University of New York at Albany
Atmospheric Science: BS, MS, PhD

State University of New York at Stony Brook
Atmospheric and Oceanic Science: BS
Marine and Atmospheric Sciences: MS and PhD

North Carolina State University
Meteorology: BS
Marine Meteorology: BS
Environmental Science – Air Quality: BS
Atmospheric Sciences: MS, PhD

University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Meteorology: BS
Geography, Earth Sciences, Geology: BS
Geography, Earth Sciences: MS
Infrastructure and Environmental Systems, PhD
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences:

Ohio State University
Geography with Atmospheric and Climatic Science Concentration: BS
Atmospheric Science: MS, PhD

University of Oklahoma
Meteorology: BS, MS, MSPM, PhD

Pennsylvania State University
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD

South Dakota School of Mines
Interdisciplinary Science: BS
Atmospheric Science: Minor; MS, PhD

Texas A&M University
Meteorology: BS
Atmospheric Sciences: MS, PhD

Texas Tech University
Atmospheric Science: MS
Geosciences: PhD

University of Utah
Meteorology: BS, MS, PhD

Utah State University
Biometeorology: MS, PhD

University of Virginia
BA and BS in Environmental Sciences
MS and Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences
with specialty in Atmospheric Sciences

University of Washington
Atmospheric Sciences: BS, minor, MS, PhD

University of Wisconsin – Madison
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences: BS, MS, PhD

University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Mathematical Sciences, Atmospheric Science Program: BS, MS, PhD

University of Wyoming
Physics with specialty in Meteorology: BS
Atmospheric Science: MS, PhD

Hurricane, I really think you're off on this point if I'm right in interpreting that you think human's breathing out CO2 is relevant to the discussion. The amount human's breathe out is negligible in comparison to the amount produced by fossil fuels. 6 billion people sounds like a lot, but in terms of biological CO2 it isn't. That's because human biomass is quite small compared to the biomass of many other forms of life that produce CO2.

You're off by many orders of magnitude.

The key point is that the carbon human's breath out come from plants that would just get consumed by something else anyway. It's the short term carbon cycle. Humans are doing nothing with this cycle that hasn't been done by countless other species over human history. What humans are doing that is NEW is that we're tapping the long term carbon cycle. Usually that carbon stays buried for hundreds of millions of years and is released slowly over that time scale. We're burning huge amounts in decades and sending it up into the air.

I don't deny the amount of CO2 put out by fossil fuels (FF) is greater than that put out by humans. I have never made that claim and it wouldn't even be a logical statement. However Nic's initial statement was that CO2 from respiration and that from FF were different. Based on the way he phrased it and never corrected it, he was wrong. CO2 is CO2. Then his defense was that the CO2 we breathed out had no appreciable affect. Once again, that is wrong. Human population and mass of humans completely counter that hypothesis. It isn't as if plant life can automatically account for that increase. By quadrupling your variable while removing a significant amount of vegetation in that period that theoretically could remove some of the CO2, to argue that CO2 isn't increasing due to human respiration is an ignorant statement and he once against lost a lot of credibility. But had Nic said that the amount of CO2 being produced via FF is much greater than respiration, we never would have had the debate. Maybe next time when he wants to have a SCIENTIFIC arguement, he will pay more attention to how he words things. And if he is called on it, he should say he worded incorrectly. He shouldn't wait till someone puts the words in his mouth and then pretend to claim that is what he meant when his choice of wording over and over countered that proposition. I was very specific, I said the amount of CO2 being produced was directly proportional to the growing obesity epidemic. Fat people eat more, breath more, need larger clothes which utilizes more energy and resources to produce, and burn more fossil fuels. Someone like Nic wants the government to tax me into some carbon copy Ponzi scheme when I think we should just start taxing the bejesus out of fat people who increase CO2, medical costs, and a whole host of other costs. More specifically, I think the data collection and scaling of raw data (as well as refusal to hand over the data to groups who want to verify the data) is flawed. I also think the Earth's atmosphere is a volume that is beyond average human comprehension and I just don't buy into ghg havn't a dramatic impact on that system. I think any variation is probably cyclic which has been proven over and over. Also, as another poster stated, we don't know what the optimal temperature on Earth is. For anyone to argue this point, they lose all credibility. Of course, when they pull out their "God statement" to their religion that MMGW is responsible for hot weather, for cold weather, for snow and rain and for dry conditions, for increased hurricane activity and decreased hurricane activity, damn if they haven't covered their ass for every possible scenario. I can respect a person that believes that MMGW exist, but the moment they can disregard the "God Statement" of every viable scenario being due to MMGW and they don't have some issue with that and can just accept that blindly without questioning it...damn, how do you get through to those people!

However Nic's initial statement was that CO2 from respiration and that from FF were different. Based on the way he phrased it and never corrected it, he was wrong. CO2 is CO2. You do not need a PhD in Chemistry to know that CO2 is CO2. You do not even need a BS for that. Any good high school graduate should know that.

It was obvious to me (and I bet many others) that Nic was referring to way these two CO2 are (re)generated. It is preposterous to even imply that Nic does not know CO2 is CO2 or that he meant CO2 from FF is somehow chemically different from CO2 from biological sources.

Shame on those cheer-leaders and clowns who jumped on this band-wagon to pile on a poster who is clearly correct and is adding value to this discussion.

You do not need a PhD in Chemistry to know that CO2 is CO2. You do not even need a BS for that. Any good high school graduate should know that.

It was obvious to me (and I bet many others) that Nic was referring to way these two CO2 are (re)generated. It is preposterous to even imply that Nic does not know CO2 is CO2 or that he meant CO2 from FF is somehow chemically different from CO2 from biological sources.

Shame on those cheer-leaders and clowns who jumped on this band-wagon to pile on a poster who is clearly correct and is adding value to this discussion.
:iagree:

Below is a list of US universities that offer at least one PhD-level program in a field most related to climate research.

Take one example:

University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA)
Atmospheric Science: BS MS, PhD

I say a UCLA PhD in Atmospheric Science knows way more about Man-Made Climate Change (MMCC) than a UCLA PhD in Physics, Chemistry, or Physical-Chemistry.

To even imply that so many prestigious universities are offering PhD programs in a bogus field (I am not saying that YOU have made that claim) is preposterous.



You misquote me while I was very specific. I will paste what I said:

Physicists and physical chemisty is the root of all science. Climatology isn't some elemental branch of science, it all comes down to thermodynamics so your point couldn't be further from the truth. I think if anything, a true physical chemist or physicist (or ChemE) would be the one person who would truly the "science" behind climatology.

Nowhere did I imply climatology was bogus. Your statement was that most PhD chemist don't understand climatology and I pointed out that thermodynamics is the very basis behind physics and chemisty. I would go head to head against any climatologist on the fundamental core laws of their field (which all derive from physical chemisty). Anyone studying climatology is discussing the principles derived from these two fields. There is no science of climatology....is an implied field based on the physical science of thermodynamics. Also having used molecular models to model something as simple as a 8-15 carbon molecules and applying scaling factors to make the THEORETICAL data correlate to the EXPERIMENTAL data, I understand the FACT that the THEORETICAL model will never get it right 100% (or even 80%) of the time. Hence you keep tweaking the scaling factors to make it fit a model for that molecule. Sadly, the model doesn't work for the next molecule. So for something as DYNAMIC as climatatology compared to something more simple and STATIC like a small molecule, I have serious issues with MODELS over DATA. The method to record temperatures has issues that have serious flaws from cherry-picked data, scaling of temperatures near urban sources or other factors, changing placement of weather stations, and the fact that urbanization of the planet is probably the greatest contributor to GW. Sorry but an asphalt laden city and suburn complex is warmer than a forest at the same latitude under identical conditions.

Your statement was that most PhD chemist don't understand climatology ...Please quote me on that.

Your statement was that most PhD chemist don't understand climatology

Please quote me on that.

See below:

"correct me if I am wrong.....most chemists, even PhD, do not necessarily know much about climate and climatology."

See below:
"correct me if I am wrong.....most chemists, even PhD, do not necessarily know much about climate and climatology."

I have not seen any evidence to contradict the above. So I stand by that statement.

And to know thermodynamics and to know that CO2 molecules from FF are the same as CO2 molecules from biological processes do not make a person climatologist.

.
To say there is some equilibrium between biological CO2 is completely false. The population had quadrupled in the past 100 years. To pretend that increasing the population by 4x has no effect on the amount of CO2 being exhaled is assinine. On The average weight of humans has increased 25-30% in that time. It isn't as if we are in some cyclic equilibrium with plant life and for every molecule of CO2 exhaled, plants convert it to O2. The fact is that there are a lot more people and a lot more obese people which contribute to the amount of CO2 being produced. It isn't a static figure as you allude to but an increasing concentration dependent on a larger concentration of CO2 producing humans. Sorry Nic, but you have no comprehension of basic sciences. To argue that the mole fraction CO2 produced by human respiration is somehow in equilibrium to what is currently present is complete bullshit.

This is VERY bad thinking. I could point you to a dozen science sources to contradict your point but it's not really necessary if you stop to think about it.

Humans are not creating the CO2 that we breathe out.

Some we breathe in and back out, and some was temporarily sequestered in the plants and animals that we consume. If we don't consume them and breathe out much of their carbon as CO2 they will either be consumed by something else, or will die and decompose naturally, releasing much of their carbon as CO2. Some carbon will go back into the earth to be sequestered there, and the earth spews out some carbon through natural processes.

Get it? We don't put out more than we take in, and we don't take in anything that isn't already available to the atmosphere in the short-term. We don't increase atmospheric concentration through respiration.

It is our non-biological activities that shift this balance in a way that no other species does, and with the transition to a carbon economy, we've dramatically amplified our impact.

You do not need a PhD in Chemistry to know that CO2 is CO2. You do not even need a BS for that. Any good high school graduate should know that. Maybe Nic didn't graduate from high school then.

Shame on those cheer-leaders and clowns who jumped on this band-wagon to pile on a poster who is clearly correct and is adding value to this discussion.Shame on yourself then as you hike up your cheerleader uniform to give the old 'sis boom bah!' to impress your buddy Nic.....completely ignoring the fact that Nic often tries to hold people to every small detail regardless of what they actually meant. When he says something and is held accountable you jump on his bandwagon to try and throw rotten apples! Good thing you love irony and hypocrisy because you just caught yourself...again! :rofl2:

Wise choice of allies though. You two are birds of a rather questionable feather.

This is VERY bad thinking. I could point you to a dozen science sources to contradict your point but it's not really necessary if you stop to think about it.

Humans are not creating the CO2 that we breathe out.

Some we breathe in and back out, and some was temporarily sequestered in the plants and animals that we consume. If we don't consume them and breathe out much of their carbon as CO2 they will either be consumed by something else, or will die and decompose naturally, releasing much of their carbon as CO2. Some carbon will go back into the earth to be sequestered there, and the earth spews out some carbon through natural processes.

Get it? We don't put out more than we take in, and we don't take in anything that isn't already available to the atmosphere in the short-term. We don't increase atmospheric concentration through respiration.

It is our non-biological activities that shift this balance in a way that no other species does, and with the transition to a carbon economy, we've dramatically amplified our impact.

At some point, all those fossil fuels were living things. When we dig up and burn carbon, we don't create it either. It can be absorbed by plants just like animal produced CO2. Imagine that...

At some point, all those fossil fuels were living things. When we dig up and burn carbon, we don't create it either. It can be absorbed by plants just like animal produced CO2. Imagine that...
Imagine that, indeed. You say two true things, but they don't in any way speak to the question of increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Just because a person can drink water does not give him the ability to process the stream from a fire hose.

If plant biomass were keeping up with our current release from fossil fuels we would be talking about a different sort of problem. But it is not and there is no scientific debate about this.

No it isn't keeping pace, but in the long term, the increased CO2 will likely lead to increased biomass. Certainly a different steady state level. This comes to the question of climate optimization. Is climate change a net evil or a net good?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/v/summaries/aquatichighco2.php

No it isn't keeping pace, but in the long term, the increased CO2 will likely lead to increased biomass. Certainly a different steady state level. This comes to the question of climate optimization. Is climate change a net evil or a net good?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/v/summaries/aquatichighco2.php
That's one of many questions that I can't begin to answer. :dontknow:

I don't have any grasp of the long-term ramifications of climate change- what advantages and disadvantages it might provide in another millennium. I just know that the short-term result of adapting to a new steady-state would, at a minimum, mean radical and costly change for mankind. Something that is vastly more painful than weening ourselves off of fossil fuels.

No it isn't keeping pace, but in the long term, the increased CO2 will likely lead to increased biomass. Certainly a different steady state level. This comes to the question of climate optimization. Is climate change a net evil or a net good?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/v/summaries/aquatichighco2.php
climate change isn't about whether the earth can take it. It'll be fine and life as a process will go on. But we humans tend to be concerned with our own welfare, and that might not be the greatest.

Just hold your breath for 15 seconds, 20 times a day. You can sell this as a carbon credit on the Chicago exchange. You make money, the earth saves on CO emissions.

climate change isn't about whether the earth can take it. It'll be fine and life as a process will go on. But we humans tend to be concerned with our own welfare, and that might not be the greatest.

Indeed, but who is to say it won't increase human welfare?

Just hold your breath for 15 seconds, 20 times a day. You can sell this as a carbon credit on the Chicago exchange. You make money, the earth saves on CO emissions.

I would prefer that those who believe in this crap hold their breath for 24 hours a day - and save us a bundle.

I would prefer that those who believe in this crap hold their breath for 24 hours a day - and save us a bundle.


:) Have you read up on the carbon credit trading frauds out there? It's sad people believe that carbon offsets work. If they really believed CO2 increases were bad, then there should be no cap and trade system, only a cap system. Slowing the growth doesn't mean that the doomsday they claim will go away, it only delays it.

To say there is some equilibrium between biological CO2 is completely false. The population had quadrupled in the past 100 years. To pretend that increasing the population by 4x has no effect on the amount of CO2 being exhaled is assinine. On The average weight of humans has increased 25-30% in that time. It isn't as if we are in some cyclic equilibrium with plant life and for every molecule of CO2 exhaled, plants convert it to O2. The fact is that there are a lot more people and a lot more obese people which contribute to the amount of CO2 being produced. It isn't a static figure as you allude to but an increasing concentration dependent on a larger concentration of CO2 producing humans. Sorry Nic, but you have no comprehension of basic sciences. To argue that the mole fraction CO2 produced by human respiration is somehow in equilibrium to what is currently present is complete bullshit.

It is you who is overlooking the basic fact that ALL CO2 which is emitted by animal respiration came from plants that absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere. The plant life has grown through agriculture to keep up with the human population. Where it hasn't, there has been starvation and us animals die.

I am really not surprised that you keep clinging to your obviously ideological based understanding of the science.

I don't deny the amount of CO2 put out by fossil fuels (FF) is greater than that put out by humans. I have never made that claim and it wouldn't even be a logical statement. However Nic's initial statement was that CO2 from respiration and that from FF were different. Based on the way he phrased it and never corrected it, he was wrong.

You are flat out wrong. I asked whether you still do not understand the DIFFERENCE between biological and fossil fuel CO2.

When you kept harping on how they are the same at the molecular level, I specifically stated twice that the difference has nothing to do with the molecule.

Your position is now so embarrassing to you, that you're going to break your leg backtracking.

No it isn't keeping pace, but in the long term, the increased CO2 will likely lead to increased biomass. Certainly a different steady state level. This comes to the question of climate optimization. Is climate change a net evil or a net good?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/v/summaries/aquatichighco2.php

Not necessarily. Esp when we keep cutting down the rainforrest which is also a long term store of CO2.

And it's generally good for humans that the ocean level not rise 5-10 feet or more cause we have a lot of infrastructure which will be flooded.

Indeed, but who is to say it won't increase human welfare?
Well, considering it'll lead to trillions of dollars in already established infrastrucure needing to be abandoned and trillions more in re-establishing new cities and communities....

Will it lead to some people making tons of money? Sure. But overall? No way.

It is you who is overlooking the basic fact that ALL CO2 which is emitted by animal respiration came from plants that absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere. The plant life has grown through agriculture to keep up with the human population. Where it hasn't, there has been starvation and us animals die.

I am really not surprised that you keep clinging to your obviously ideological based understanding of the science.

Hmmmm, I thought the production of CO2 from respiration came from O2, not from CO2 in plants. I will need to edit all my biochemistry books now. Thanks!!!

And so we can dumb this down for you even more, answer these questions:

1) In the past 100 years, have human increased in number, decreased in number, or remained the same?

2) In the past 100 years, have flora increased in number, decreased in number, or remained the same?

If you answered increased for the first and decreased for the second, and hint, you would have if you wanted to be correct, your defense of some dynamic equilibrium between a CO2 cycle between animals and plants is just purely wrong! Try again Bill Nye!


You are flat out wrong. I asked whether you still do not understand the DIFFERENCE between biological and fossil fuel CO2.

When you kept harping on how they are the same at the molecular level, I specifically stated twice that the difference has nothing to do with the molecule.

Your position is now so embarrassing to you, that you're going to break your leg backtracking.

When you ask what the difference "between biological and fossil fuel CO2" is, there is no difference, the molecules are the same. When I then responded specifically on molecules, you never corrected yourself. It wasn't until someone started talking about the relative abundances and sources of each that you took your "new" position. Based on your original post, you were wrong. If you mean something else, which seems to be an ever growing trend for you in the podium, you should have been more specific or used the right language. But CO2 is a molecule, not an idea, so when you ask for the difference between CO2, there is only one way to interpret your question as we are talking about a tangible item, not some idea or theory which is now what you claim to have meant.

Hmmmm, I thought the production of CO2 from respiration came from O2, not from CO2 in plants. By no means do I claim I am expert on this and I clearly know less than nic and you in this filed but don't humans eat a lot of "carbs"?

By no means do I claim I am expert on this and I clearly know less than nic and you in this filed but don't humans eat a lot of "carbs"?

Yes, and hence the issue with the epidemic of rising obesity! And next time, just say you know less than me, Nic knows everything! He has never been wrong ever and everytime he is backed into a corner, it is because someone misunderstood him...and you will find a lot of people who echo that about him.

Yes, and hence the issue with the epidemic of rising obesity!So plants use C (or CO2) in the atmosphere to grow and we eat plants, breath, and then produce CO2. Is that not roughly a zero net addition of C (or CO2) to the atmosphere?

So plants use C (or CO2) in the atmosphere to grow and we eat plants, breath, and then produce CO2. Is that not roughly a zero net addition of C (or CO2) to the atmosphere?

By that same argument, didn't fossil fuels originate from the decomposition of animal life millions of years ago so that the burning of fossil fuels adds no net C to the atmosphere? <----My attempt at a philisophical reply! :lol:

To address your question though, considering the law of conservation of mass, one could argue every element on Earth has been here since the beginning of time and hence there is no net gain or loss. But what does change is the formation of molecules. So while there may not be a theoretical change in C in the atmosphere, obviously as O2 is converted to CO2, the dynamic equilibrium between the two would change. The fact is is that humans have increased 4 fold in ~100 years. During that time, we have removed a lot of flora from the environment to make towns, cities, railways, roads, etc. So against Nic's hypothesis that there is some dynamic equilibrium between flora and fauna, the fact is that flora is decreasing while fauna is increasing. Hence that dynamic sink he alludes to can't exist unless flora is just processing the CO2 at a much higher rate to negate for any molecular shift towards higher CO2 levels. If he can prove that point, he has me.

By that same argument, didn't fossil fuels originate from the decomposition of animal life millions of years ago so that the burning of fossil fuels adds no net C to the atmosphere? I am not quite sure about that. I am more conformable about this one, though:

"fossil fuels originate from the decomposition of animal life millions of years ago so that the burning of fossil fuels adds no net C to the earth+its atmosphere."

See.......compared to say 100s or perhaps even 1000 years ago, burning of fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere while not adding any C to the earth+its atmosphere.

Look at it this way, the same atom of C that is part of the CO2 that you breath out might have been (actually has been) part of the atmosphere perhaps 2 days earlier but the C in the CO2 that comes off a combustion engine might have been in the atmosphere thousands of years ago. That distinguishes between the two sources of CO2. They are on different time constants/scales.

I am not quite sure about that. I am more conformable about this one, though:

"fossil fuels originate from the decomposition of animal life millions of years ago so that the burning of fossil fuels adds no net C to the earth+its atmosphere."

See.......compared to say 100s or perhaps even 1000 years ago, burning of fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere while not adding any C to the earth+its atmosphere.

Look at it this way, the same atom of C that is part of the CO2 that you breath out might have been (actually has been) part of the atmosphere perhaps 2 days earlier but the C in the CO2 that comes off a combustion engine might have been in the atmosphere thousands of years ago. That distinguishes between the two sources of CO2. They are on different time constants/scales.

I agree completely with what you are saying. I also agree that burning of fossil fuels add more CO2 than respiration (not because of the source, but volume of CO2 produced). However, fact is that the biggest CO2 sink for humans has been flora which has decreased tremendously over the past 100 years while fauna has increased exponentially. Hence, an equilibrium that existed purely on those two factors (and we would of course mean this theoretically) is not the same one that exists today. While human respiration may be a much smaller factor in the grand scheme of things, it isn't neglible. Regardless, I personally don't think increasing CO2 is responsible for MMGW. I am not sure a non-cyclic warming really occurs as there are serious flaws with the data collection. Moreover, to assume CO2 is the culprit ignores other factors as well. Maybe CO2 does contribute but to pretend it is the sole or leading contributor is nothing more than a hypothesis.

To address your question though, considering the law of conservation of mass, one could argue every element on Earth has been here since the beginning of time and hence there is no net gain or loss. But what does change is the formation of molecules. So while there may not be a theoretical change in C in the atmosphere, obviously as O2 is converted to CO2, the dynamic equilibrium between the two would change. The fact is is that humans have increased 4 fold in ~100 years. During that time, we have removed a lot of flora from the environment to make towns, cities, railways, roads, etc. So against Nic's hypothesis that there is some dynamic equilibrium between flora and fauna, the fact is that flora is decreasing while fauna is increasing. Hence that dynamic sink he alludes to can't exist unless flora is just processing the CO2 at a much higher rate to negate for any molecular shift towards higher CO2 levels. If he can prove that point, he has me.

Don't stop now, you're making an excellent case for MMGW. ;)

I agree completely with what you are saying. I also agree that burning of fossil fuels add more CO2 than respiration (not because of the source, but volume of CO2 produced). However, fact is that the biggest CO2 sink for humans has been flora which has decreased tremendously over the past 100 years while fauna has increased exponentially. Hence, an equilibrium that existed purely on those two factors (and we would of course mean this theoretically) is not the same one that exists today. While human respiration may be a much smaller factor in the grand scheme of things, it isn't neglible. Regardless, I personally don't think increasing CO2 is responsible for MMGW. I am not sure a non-cyclic warming really occurs as there are serious flaws with the data collection. Moreover, to assume CO2 is the culprit ignores other factors as well. Maybe CO2 does contribute but to pretend it is the sole or leading contributor is nothing more than a hypothesis.Thanks. The flora thing that you say is way above my head.

Let me ask you a question, though: say we add all the carbon atoms in the atmosphere alone and call it X. Do you think X has increased over the last 200 years?

Here is anohter one; say we add all the carbon in the fossil fuels that have been burnt since the year 1WX0 and call it Y and do the same for the period 1-1WX0 and call it Z. At what WX value, do you think Y=Z?

(Here is my pure wild guess: WX = or > 83.)

The point that everyone is trying to explain is that at one time, billions of years ago, the earth had an atmosphere devoid of o2 as there were many o2 mineral sinks, especially iron. Over millions of years these small cyanobacteria (and newly evolved eukaryotic algae) through photosynthesis essentially changed our atmosphere to one containing a significant percentage of oxygen. This carbon is still tied up in deep sediment layers in the earth that we call fossil fuels. Releasing this source of carbon is different from an ecological POV than releasing the carbon from plant matter that has only been tied up for less than a few hundred or even thousands of years.

Don't they still teach this stuff in jr. high?

By that same argument, didn't fossil fuels originate from the decomposition of animal life millions of years ago so that the burning of fossil fuels adds no net C to the atmosphere?
On a scale of millions of years, you're correct. Humans don't really care about that scale.

The point that everyone is trying to explain is that at one time, billions of years ago, the earth had an atmosphere devoid of o2 as there were many o2 mineral sinks, especially iron. Over millions of years these small cyanobacteria (and newly evolved eukaryotic algae) through photosynthesis essentially changed our atmosphere to one containing a significant percentage of oxygen. This carbon is still tied up in deep sediment layers in the earth that we call fossil fuels. Releasing this source of carbon is different from an ecological POV than releasing the carbon from plant matter that has only been tied up for less than a few hundred or even thousands of years.

Or just last year's crops.


Don't they still teach this stuff in jr. high?

Apparently they don't teach that carbohydrate containing plant growth has kept up with human consumption where cane went to school.

Or just last year's crops.

Last year's crops would certainly be included by the description of "less than a few hundred years."

Last year's crops would certainly be included by the description of "less than a few hundred years."

Yes, they would. But my point is that the vast majority of human plant consumption grew less than a year or two ago. Maybe 10, if you include that consumed by livestock.

Yes, they would. But my point is that the vast majority of human plant consumption grew less than a year or two ago. Maybe 10, if you include that consumed by livestock.
I'm not only including livestock but also trees for wood burning. You can clear cut all of the forests in the world and barely make a dent in the amount of carbon that is tied up in fossil fuel.

I'm not only including livestock but also trees for wood burning. You can clear cut all of the forests in the world and barely make a dent in the amount of carbon that is tied up in fossil fuel.
But the molecule is still the same! :whee:

But the molecule is still the same! :whee:
However, to be fair to 'cane, Nic asked if he understood the "DIFFERENCE between biological and fossil fuel CO2."
'Cane was correct, there is no difference between the two, both are biological in origin. The difference is using a well-entrenched reservoir vs. the normal carbon cycle. Nic's answer was quite vague and it did appear on first read that he was saying there is an actual difference between two different types of co2 and how it affects the atmosphere.

However, to be fair to 'cane, Nic asked if he understood the "DIFFERENCE between biological and fossil fuel CO2."
'Cane was correct, there is no difference between the two, both are biological in origin. The difference is using a well-entrenched reservoir vs. the normal carbon cycle. Nic's answer was quite vague and it did appear on first read that he was saying there is an actual difference between two different types of co2 and how it affects the atmosphere.

What's vague about "it has nothing to do with the molecule?"

And there is a difference in how the two types affect the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel CO2 increases atmospheric concentrations while biological CO2 does not.

Fossil fuel may be biological in origin, but it's been transformed by millions of years of storage under pressure. Of course the atmospheric difference is when it was absorbed and stored.

Diamonds and graphite are the same Carbon, too. But no one would claim there's no difference between them. Not even cane. ;)

What's vague about "it has nothing to do with the molecule?"

And there is a difference in how the two types affect the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel CO2 increases atmospheric concentrations while biological CO2 does not.

Fossil fuel may be biological in origin, but it's been transformed by millions of years of storage under pressure. Of course the atmospheric difference is when it was absorbed and stored.

Diamonds and graphite are the same Carbon, too. But no one would claim there's no difference between them. Not even cane. ;)
Nic, I wasn't criticizing you. I was just pointing out how the initial comment was ambiguous and could have been interpreted more than one way.
Your comment that it has nothing to do with the molecule wasn't made until a later post after 'Cane made his initial assessment.

If you noticed, I clearly agreed with you and understand the difference between co2 currently being produced and the carbon locked up in long-term storage. The difference between graphite and diamonds IS at the molecular level, and a different argument than that of differentiating between releasing stored carbon and recycling carbon.

So please, don't be offended by my attempt to clarify and give the benefit of the doubt to someone that took what you said in a different manner than you intended. It happens in all debates and instead of arguing about it and implying the opposition is a dumbass, I personally like to find the common ground and expand on the point so there is mutual understanding.

Nic, I wasn't criticizing you. I was just pointing out how the initial comment was ambiguous and could have been interpreted more than one way.
Your comment that it has nothing to do with the molecule wasn't made until a later post after 'Cane made his initial assessment.

If you noticed, I clearly agreed with you and understand the difference between co2 currently being produced and the carbon locked up in long-term storage. The difference between graphite and diamonds IS at the molecular level, and a different argument than that of differentiating between releasing stored carbon and recycling carbon.

So please, don't be offended by my attempt to clarify and give the benefit of the doubt to someone that took what you said in a different manner than you intended. It happens in all debates and instead of arguing about it and implying the opposition is a dumbass, I personally like to find the common ground and expand on the point so there is mutual understanding.

Really? Diamonds are a different "molecule" than graphite?

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon)

There are several allotropes of carbon of which the best known are graphite, diamond, and amorphous carbon.

Where exactly is the boundary between molecules of Diamond?

What's vague about "it has nothing to do with the molecule?"

And there is a difference in how the two types affect the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel CO2 increases atmospheric concentrations while biological CO2 does not.

Fossil fuel may be biological in origin, but it's been transformed by millions of years of storage under pressure. Of course the atmospheric difference is when it was absorbed and stored.

Diamonds and graphite are the same Carbon, too. But no one would claim there's no difference between them. Not even cane. ;)
Really? Diamonds are a different "molecule" than graphite?

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon)



Where exactly is the boundary between molecules of Diamond?

:lmao: Now you are bringing in different forms of Carbon to introduce your point on how you did or didn't mean there were different forms of CO2? :lmao: So what is it, is a molecule of CO2 from respiration the same or different than a CO2 molecule from fossil fuels with respect to chemical and physical properties? You flip flop more than that Waffle House! Do you understand the fundamental differences between forms of carbon and how that has nothing to do with CO2?

Let me use cliff notes version for you:

Carbon has at least 4 structural forms. CO2 has only one! Disagree???

Really? Diamonds are a different "molecule" than graphite?

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon)


Where exactly is the boundary between molecules of Diamond?
Yes, diamonds form a lattice structure at the molecular level with each carbon atom bonding to four others in a tetrahedron configuration giving it very good strength while in graphite the carbon bonds to only three other carbon atoms in 2-dimensional hexagonal ring structures, which is why they slide across each other so readily. IOW, diamonds have a different molecular bonds of the element carbon than graphite which is why they have different properties.

Your wikipedia link explains it further on down the page and even has pictures showing the various allotropes of the element carbon. Do you think oxygen and ozone are the same molecule?

:lmao: Now you are bringing in different forms of Carbon to introduce your point on how you did or didn't mean there were different forms of CO2? :lmao: So what is it, is a molecule of CO2 from respiration the same or different than a CO2 molecule from fossil fuels with respect to chemical and physical properties? You flip flop more than that Waffle House! Do you understand the fundamental differences between forms of carbon and how that has nothing to do with CO2?

Let me use cliff notes version for you:

Carbon has at least 4 structural forms. CO2 has only one! Disagree???

No, I don't disagree. And I never said they are not different structural forms.

I am just unfamiliar with allotropes being different molecules.

When atoms are in a symetrical lattice, there does not seem to be any boundary within which you could identify a separate molecule, unlike O and O2.

I'm not even sure if a single atom like O can be considered a molecule at all.

As you said, they are different structural forms.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I stated twice that the effect of different sources of CO2 have nothing to do with the molecules being different?

No, I don't disagree. And I never said they are not different structural forms.

I am just unfamiliar with allotropes being different molecules.
I suspect you are thinking about isotopes. Allotropes are different molecules by definition [Any form of an element that has a distinctly different molecular structure to another form of the same element (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allotrope)]
A molecule is a structure of elements and different bonds will form different configurations whether it is with different elements or the same ones. It is this structure that gives a molecule it's specific properties. An isotope, OTOH, has all of the same properties of other isotopes of the same element.

I suspect you are thinking about isotopes. Allotropes are different molecules by definition [Any form of an element that has a distinctly different molecular structure to another form of the same element (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allotrope)]
A molecule is a structure of elements and different bonds will form different configurations whether it is with different elements or the same ones. It is this structure that gives a molecule it's specific properties. An isotope, OTOH, has all of the same properties of other isotopes of the same element.

No, I wasn't thinking of isotopes.

How many C's in a molecule of Diamond? 5?

Since it has to have the same chemical properties, and all.....

I mean, it's obvious with a gas like CO2. But a symetrical lattice seems like a different story.

And how many C's in a molecule of a Carbon nanotube? How long does the tube have to be to have the chemical properties of a nanotube? Is a single ring enough?

Seems like a longer tube has different properties from a single ring from what I've heard.

However, to be fair to 'cane, Nic asked if he understood the "DIFFERENCE between biological and fossil fuel CO2."
'Cane was correct, there is no difference between the two, both are biological in origin. The difference is using a well-entrenched reservoir vs. the normal carbon cycle. Nic's answer was quite vague and it did appear on first read that he was saying there is an actual difference between two different types of co2 and how it affects the atmosphere.
I know. :) I just felt like being a jerk.

No, I wasn't thinking of isotopes.

How many C's in a molecule of Diamond? 5?

Since it has to have the same chemical properties, and all.....

I mean, it's obvious with a gas like CO2. But a symetrical lattice seems like a different story.

And how many C's in a molecule of a Carbon nanotube? How long does the tube have to be to have the chemical properties of a nanotube? Is a single ring enough?

Seems like a longer tube has different properties from a single ring from what I've heard.
you're thinking of different molecules being formed by the same atoms. Even when the chemical formula is the exact same, there can be different molecules, like the different forms of sugars.

Nanotubes are essentially (not exactly) polymers, made of a repeating monomer.

Don't get into semantics -- you sound like Demo.

No, I don't disagree. And I never said they are not different structural forms.

Double negative would seem to say otherwise. Freudien slip?

I am just unfamiliar with allotropes being different molecules.

That is because allotropes are only for elements, not molecules.

When atoms are in a symetrical lattice, there does not seem to be any boundary within which you could identify a separate molecule, unlike O and O2.

O would have no lattice as it is an element and can't not exist alone.

I'm not even sure if a single atom like O can be considered a molecule at all.

It can't, it exists as a diatomic molecule.

As you said, they are different structural forms.

For carbon yes, not for carbon part of a CO2 molecule.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I stated twice that the effect of different sources of CO2 have nothing to do with the molecules being different?

Because you brought up the issue of allotropes in carbon like you had somehow helped your argument. To bring it up when it is irrelevant to the points you claimed to be making made absolutely no sense. I am not sure what you were trying to prove bringing up allotropes of carbon. However, because I still believe you think CO2 from different sources is somehow chemically or physically different, the fact you brought up different forms of carbon seems to support my earlier issues with your original statement that began this whole debate. So the point is, what was the relevance for bringing up allotropes of C and what was its relevance to your defense?

Because you brought up the issue of allotropes in carbon like you had somehow helped your argument. To bring it up when it is irrelevant to the points you claimed to be making made absolutely no sense. I am not sure what you were trying to prove bringing up allotropes of carbon. However, because I still believe you think CO2 from different sources is somehow chemically or physically different, the fact you brought up different forms of carbon seems to support my earlier issues with your original statement that began this whole debate. So the point is, what was the relevance for bringing up allotropes of C and what was its relevance to your defense?

That does not answer my question wrt before I even mentioned Carbon allotropes.

Before that you alleged that I was unclear that I was not referring to molecular differences of biological and fossil fuel CO2 when in fact I twice wrote the difference has nothing to do with the molecule.

I specifically asked you about your understanding of the difference between them and you kept saying there is none. There is a difference in the effect which depends on the source and I referred to the source in my question. When someone asks about the difference, it might be wise to consider whether there is a difference rather than claiming there is none.

BTW, thanks for the clarification wrt allotropes vs. molecules. Your explanation makes more sense to me than frog's.

Crap....I didn't mean to restart this. I was just trying to be an ass :)

Crap....I didn't mean to restart this. I was just trying to be an ass :)
should just come back to GL and bitch at all the Wii haters instead :roll:

BTW, thanks for the clarification wrt allotropes vs. molecules. Your explanation makes more sense to me than frog's.
yes, that wiktionary definition of allotropes being different molecules formed from the same element was so confusing....:rolleyes:

yes, that wiktionary definition of allotropes being different molecules formed from the same element was so confusing....:rolleyes:

What's confusing, and that you still have not answered is:

How many C's in a molecule of diamond? 5?

How about a carbon nanotube?

Both of these have different chemical properties. And the properties of nanotubes seems to depend on their length.

Molecular structure is relatively clear when dealing with non-elemental molecules.

But when discussing elemental symetrical lattices, the differences are much less clear.

Just cause someone wrote it in wikitionary, does not mean it's crystal clear (pun intended). :P

should just come back to GL and bitch at all the Wii haters instead :roll:
Sounds good to me :cheers:

What's confusing, and that you still have not answered is:

How many C's in a molecule of diamond? 5?

How about a carbon nanotube?

Both of these have different chemical properties. And the properties of nanotubes seems to depend on their length.

Molecular structure is relatively clear when dealing with non-elemental molecules.

But when discussing elemental symetrical lattices, the differences are much less clear.

Just cause someone wrote it in wikitionary, does not mean it's crystal clear (pun intended). :P
IIRC, in diamond, each C atom is bonded to 4 others. In graphite, bonds are made to 3 others. Once you start talking about nanotubes, you're now not talking about the molecular unit properties but properties of the entire mass. For instance, a sheet of paper has poor compressional strength. However, roll it into a tight tube, and it now does have decent compressional strength.

You didn't change the molecules at all, but by rearranging the macroscopic mass you get different features.

What's confusing, and that you still have not answered is:

How many C's in a molecule of diamond? 5?

How about a carbon nanotube?

Both of these have different chemical properties. And the properties of nanotubes seems to depend on their length.

Molecular structure is relatively clear when dealing with non-elemental molecules.

But when discussing elemental symetrical lattices, the differences are much less clear.

There is no number of Cs in a diamond molecule, it depends on how big of a molecule you want to examine. The molecules of graphite and diamonds are infinite repeating patterns so your question is essentially meaningless. It is more important to understand the nature of the covalent bonds of the carbon atom (sigma and pi) to determine what type of molecule it will form. I guess you are asking what is the minimum number of carbon atoms required to be legitimately called either a diamond or graphite? I would say that adamantame, which consists of 10 carbon atoms is the smallest unit of diamond structure even though it contains 16 hydrogen atoms.


Just cause someone wrote it in wikitionary, does not mean it's crystal clear (pun intended). :PIt was no less clear than what 'cane said. I chose to use the wictionary definition because it appeared the most concise. That you were unable to grasp the simplicity should not be blamed on me nor the wiki author.

For someone that claims to have broad enough knowledge of the science and chemistry in order to understand the complexities of global warming, you sure have some holes in your knowledge of some of these fundamentals.

There is no number of Cs in a diamond molecule, it depends on how big of a molecule you want to examine. The molecules of graphite and diamonds are infinite repeating patterns so your question is essentially meaningless. It is more important to understand the nature of the covalent bonds of the carbon atom (sigma and pi) to determine what type of molecule it will form. I guess you are asking what is the minimum number of carbon atoms required to be legitimately called either a diamond or graphite? I would say that adamantame, which consists of 10 carbon atoms is the smallest unit of diamond structure even though it contains 16 hydrogen atoms.

It was no less clear than what 'cane said. I chose to use the wictionary definition because it appeared the most concise. That you were unable to grasp the simplicity should not be blamed on me nor the wiki author.

It seems there are differing opinions:

That is because allotropes are only for elements, not molecules.


and (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_carbon_atoms_make_up_one_diamond_molecule)


There is no such thing as a "diamond molecule"; a diamond is just crystalized carbon atoms.


In another sense, a diamond is one big, visible molecule. A one-carat diamond is one big molecule weighing 0.2g and having 10 sextillion atoms. Lots and lots of atoms!


Seems it is not as clear as you seem to think.


For someone that claims to have broad enough knowledge of the science and chemistry in order to understand the complexities of global warming, you sure have some holes in your knowledge of some of these fundamentals.

I've only claimed to be able to understand what the experts say.

In fact I've specifically stated that I don't understand all the details and that it would take years of study to do so.

As far as an adamantame of diamond, wth is that? Can't find any def which relates to molecular structure.

It seems there are differing opinions:



and (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_carbon_atoms_make_up_one_diamond_molecule)


Seems it is not as clear as you seem to think.It's not a difference of opinion, an allotrope only applies to a single element having different molecular structure. We are all saying the same thing in different ways.

I agree with your wiki answers which is why I said your question was meaningless because there is no single molecule called diamond or graphite, we were trying to explain that the term allotrope is used, not molecule. However, in the broad sense, the word molecule means collection of at atoms that have a specific chemical properties and that's what I thought you were trying to figure out.

Don't mind me, I have been feeling a little snarky lately. I probably should never have responded to you in the manner in which I did. Sorry.:hug:
I've only claimed to be able to understand what the experts say.
In fact I've specifically stated that I don't understand all the details and that it would take years of study to do so.That's fair. I actually think it is pretty simple to understand if you have a basic grasp of chemistry and physics. Sure, there are a lot of details and tons of data such as the oceanic conveyor system and periodic weather effects that effect the models but the basic premise is easy to understand IMHO.

As far as an adamantame of diamond, wth is that? Can't find any def which relates to molecular structure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamantane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamantane

I saw that page but could not figure out how it relates to diamond of 10 atoms of carbon, since it is a hydrocarbon: C10H16

And I missed this:

The arrangement of carbon atoms is the same in adamantane and diamond.[23] However, in the adamantane solid, molecules do not form a covalent lattice as in diamond, but interact through weak Van der Waals forces. As a result, adamantane crystals are very soft and plastic.

I'm still not sure why this is the minimum configuration for a "molecule" of diamond.

I saw that page but could not figure out how it relates to diamond of 10 atoms of carbon, since it is a hydrocarbon: C10H16

And I missed this:



I'm still not sure why this is the minimum configuration for a "molecule" of diamond.
Probably because they call this the smallest diamondoid and the hydrogen bonds can be replaced with other cages making larger lattices, so I presented this as the smallest unit that resembles the carbon in a diamond (C bonding to 4 other C). But like I said, it isn't a diamond because the bonding forces are different and therefore has different chemical properties.

It's just an interesting aside to our conversation.

You guys seem to follow this global warming stuff more than I do. I was wondering...the Earth is a pretty complex system with a lot of things happening on it, inside of it, outside of it, etc. To what degree is global warming caused specifically by CO2? 0.001%? 100%? Other?

You guys seem to follow this global warming stuff more than I do. I was wondering...the Earth is a pretty complex system with a lot of things happening on it, inside of it, outside of it, etc. To what degree is global warming caused specifically by CO2? 0.001%? 100%? Other?

Global Temps. are caused the Sun's solar energy 99% of the time. CO2 might affect and accelerate the rest. There is a stat. that shows 97% of CO2 is from organic deposition, deforestation, and volcanic smoke. I forget the source so double check.

Global Warming's real danger is in polluted cities with smog and places at sea/river level. Thus produces stronger heat waves and local flooding.

Other factors are Ice Sheets.
One of my sources of info. is from NASA JPL Iceberg Scientist & GEOG Textbook.

You guys seem to follow this global warming stuff more than I do. I was wondering...the Earth is a pretty complex system with a lot of things happening on it, inside of it, outside of it, etc. To what degree is global warming caused specifically by CO2? 0.001%? 100%? Other?
That's a question that's kind of nonsensical in terms of how things work, because you can't exactly say X% of warming is caused by this, Y% by this, etc. Water vapor has a far larger GHG effect overall because of its prevalence. CH4 is a much more potent molecule than CO2 (and one we're starting to worry about as well). The main reason why we focus on CO2 is because once it is in the atmosphere, it remains there for a long, long, looooong time. Water vapor cycles in and out every month or so. CO2 requires hundreds to thousands of years to be removed once its introduce.

And there are papers that show that the observed increased temperatures are not due solely to solar activity.

And there are papers that show that the observed increased temperatures are not due solely to solar activity

And that's the thing. You don't say it's "not due to solar activity." You say "not due solely," meaning it is not ruled out as a contributing factor.

Let me put it this way. A carbon tax will disrupt economic activity. That is a 100% certainty, and such disruption will have many dire consequences in itself. I'd like to know how certain we are that such a disruption will in fact significantly slow or stop climate change. Otherwise, if it turns out that even halving man-made CO2 production won't even make a dent against climate change because we've overestimated its actual contribution versus all the other possible contributors out there (everything from the Sun to the magnetic field), we're arguably making a bad move focusing all our energies towards fighting an inevitable rather than figuring out how to adapt to it.

Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't have this figured out. Frankly, what irks me as I read this thread is the arrogance some of you seem to have about this - as if we are masters of this planet, as if we know everything about such a super-complex system and that everything that needs to be known can be summarized in a couple of paragraphs of bubblegum news article - and then insulting those who do not share or even dare to question your view, e.g., citing Dunning-Kruger and "nonsensical" questions. I want you all to consider the possibility... What if you are the ones operating under Dunning-Kruger? What if you have overestimated yourselves and are wrong?

I cant believe you all are still arguing about this. Global warming is a dead issue. Maybe we should revive talk about the hole in the ozone layer! OMGWTFBBQ!!! That was supposed to kill us all a long time ago. :rolleyes:

Even Gore and Pelosi have quit with the GW stuff.

I cant believe you all are still arguing about this. Global warming is a dead issue. Maybe we should revive talk about the hole in the ozone layer! OMGWTFBBQ!!! That was supposed to kill us all a long time ago. :rolleyes:


But it was fixed with treaties and legislation limiting CFC's. Try to keep up.


Even Gore and Pelosi have quit with the GW stuff.

Says who?

And that's the thing. You don't say it's "not due to solar activity." You say "not due solely," meaning it is not ruled out as a contributing factor.

Let me put it this way. A carbon tax will disrupt economic activity. That is a 100% certainty, and such disruption will have many dire consequences in itself. I'd like to know how certain we are that such a disruption will in fact significantly slow or stop climate change. Otherwise, if it turns out that even halving man-made CO2 production won't even make a dent against climate change because we've overestimated its actual contribution versus all the other possible contributors out there (everything from the Sun to the magnetic field), we're arguably making a bad move focusing all our energies towards fighting an inevitable rather than figuring out how to adapt to it.

Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't have this figured out. Frankly, what irks me as I read this thread is the arrogance some of you seem to have about this - as if we are masters of this planet, as if we know everything about such a super-complex system and that everything that needs to be known can be summarized in a couple of paragraphs of bubblegum news article - and then insulting those who do not share or even dare to question your view, e.g., citing Dunning-Kruger and "nonsensical" questions. I want you all to consider the possibility... What if you are the ones operating under Dunning-Kruger? What if you have overestimated yourselves and are wrong?

Well now, that depends on what remedies are implemented.

The same question can be asked in the other direction: What if the problem is even worse than projected? Projections are that much of Manhattan (and many others) will be flooded by 2100 if nothing is done.

How about proving that no harm will be done before permitting furhter increases in CO2?

But it was fixed with treaties and legislation limiting CFC's. Try to keep up.

Oh, really? :lmao: Ok.



Says who?

I did, just now. If Gore and Pelosi can make shit up out of thin air and manipulated data, then so can I.

The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. That's it. On top of that, volcanic ash can change our climate FAR more intensly than we ever could and we have no way of stopping volcanos.

The earth is pretty good at managing it's own climate, with or without us.

You all are going to look like complete fools when NOTHING significant ever happens in regards to "Global BS Warming". I'll be bringing this post up and rubbing your noses in it.

Oh, really? :lmao: Ok.



Says who?

I did, just now. If Gore and Pelosi can make shit up out of thin air and manipulated data, then so can I.

The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. That's it. On top of that, volcanic ash can change our climate FAR more intensly than we ever could and we have no way of stopping volcanos.

The earth is pretty good at managing it's own climate, with or without us.

You all are going to look like complete fools when NOTHING significant ever happens in regards to "Global BS Warming". I'll be bringing this post up and rubbing it in your noses.

It's obvious that you're talking out of your hind end and have no substantiation, let alone understanding of the science.

Take your trolling elsewhere.

It's obvious that you're talking out of your hind end and have no substantiation, let alone understanding of the science.

Take your trolling elsewhere.

I have as much GOOD evidence as anyone else does to back up my viewpoint, which is ALMOST NONE, because the "evidence" we have now is completely inadequate to reach a real conclusion, so all we're left with is opinion.

And all this talk about types of carbon? Give me a frigging break. our C02 has been higher by a huge factor in the past and the earth was as healthy, if not healthier than it is today. CO2 as a greenhouse gas... it's ridiculous.

I have as much GOOD evidence as anyone else does to back up my viewpoint, which is ALMOST NONE, because the "evidence" we have now is completely inadequate to reach a real conclusion, so all we're left with is opinion.


That's completely true for those who don't understand the science i.e. you.


And all this talk about types of carbon? Give me a frigging break. our C02 has been higher by a huge factor in the past and the earth was as healthy, if not healthier than it is today. CO2 as a greenhouse gas... it's ridiculous.

Yeah, and world has been a lot warmer with much higher sea levels, too. Doesn't mean we want it that way now.

You have any idea where all that CO2 went?

That's completely true for those who don't understand the science i.e. you.



Yeah, and world has been a lot warmer with much higher sea levels, too. Doesn't mean we want it that way now.

You have any idea where all that CO2 went?

The worlds continent were a much different shape then, too (we think!, Again, just a theory), so with that, you're able to determine that the sea levels were SO different from where they are now? SO much of this is theory, that it negates any HONEST conclusion about ANY of it.

And speaking of honest, I'm NOT a troll, but I'll tell you right now, that I think so little of the global warming issue and the people that are swinging off the nuts of those pushing the THEORY, that I won't bother to argue much about it. It's a waste of time and energy. You won't be changing your mind any time soon anyway.

BTW, here's the REAL culprit in GW: The Sun (As some earlier poster said).

Do you even bother to look back at what Gore has said in the past? All the gloom and doom that he (and many others) were spouting that just never materialized? Then they just quietly modify their numbers down, so that people forget out outrageous and ridiculous they sounded.

Here's a good example:

http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3276.shtml

Gore, Schwarzenegger and the IPCC made their mark through their dramatic predictions of catastrophic sea level rise due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Al Gore once predicted that sea level would rise by 20 feet over the century. Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger unveiled a map showing world sea level rising by 1.5 meters over the next century. In 2001 the IPCC predicted that sea level would rise by 3 feet over the next century. The actual rise over the last 18 years is 1.85 inches, which works out to 10.4 inches per century. This is similar to the 20th century's rise of 8 inches, but much less than the average rise of 4 foot per century for the last 10,000 years as the glaciers left by the last ice age continue to melt.

The chart below shows how these predictions stack up against 18 years of accurate satellite measurements:

http://www.idealtaxes.com/images/teacher/SeaLevelGSI.jpg

Al Gore's prediction is clearly the best of these three. He was awarded a million dollar Nobel Peace Prize for bringing this issue to the attention of the world. The IPCC's prediction is second. At the Cancun Conference this month they won a huge expansion of the UN bureaucracy. Schwarzenegger's prediction comes in third since it is not yet clear whether he will get the global warming spokesman job in the Obama administration that he is angling for.

British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn is the clear loser. He still works out of a drab office that the Sydney Morning Herald calls "undistinguished":

(T)his is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people - notably in farming - are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.

Corbyn, like many other physicists, has figured out that climate change is mainly due to extra-terrestrial forces, including solar activity and cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide. He makes predictions based upon patterns of solar activity, and they usually turn out to be correct.

Who says that climate change will not be catastrophic? Starting January 2, President Obama's EPA will start enforcing its new regulation that American industries use the "best available control technologies" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This could increase American energy costs sufficiently to choke off our economic recovery.

And don't forget that at the conclusion of last year's climate conference in Copenhagen. President Obama negotiated the Copenhagen Accord with China, Brazil, South Africa and India as a framework for future negotiations. That accord lets China opt out from any verifiable requirements, but commits the developed nations to paying out $100 billion per year to the UN and to the participating developing countries. That accord stated:

In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

So who is the best climate predictor of the year? That honor goes to President Hu of China. Due to his clear-eyed understanding, his country will get the industries that are sent to China by President Obama and the UN.

The worlds continent were a much different shape then, too (we think!, Again, just a theory), so with that, you're able to determine that the sea levels were SO different from where they are now? SO much of this is theory, that it negates any HONEST conclusion about ANY of it.

Just cause you're ignorant of the evidence does not mean there is none.


And speaking of honest, I'm NOT a troll, but I'll tell you right now, that I think so little of the global warming issue and the people that are swinging off the nuts of those pushing the THEORY, that I won't bother to argue much about it. It's a waste of time and energy. You won't be changing your mind any time soon anyway.

Certainly not based on your opinion; which is all you have.

BTW, here's the REAL culprit in GW: The Sun (As some earlier poster said).

Do you even bother to look back at what Gore has said in the past? All the gloom and doom that he (and many others) were spouting that just never materialized? Then they just quietly modify their numbers down, so that people forget out outrageous and ridiculous they sounded.

Here's a good example:

http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3276.shtml


Yeah, I always look at tax websites for "honest" scientific info. No agenda there. :rolleyes:

Just cause you're ignorant of the evidence does not mean there is none.



Certainly not based on your opinion; which is all you have.

Again, it's hard to come to a solid decision when you don't have solid data. Show us SOLID data, THEN we can TRY to make some SOLID theories from it. You keep pretending that you totally, like, understand all the sciency stuff, when there are hundreds of climate scientists that can't even agree on the veracity of the data NOR the accuracy of the models used to TRY to predict and explain what's happening with our climate.

As far as the tax website goes, are you disputing that Al Gore said what he said about our oceans rising? Or are you disputing that it didn't happen and that we're now living underwater?

Again, it's hard to come to a solid decision when you don't have solid data. Show us SOLID data, THEN we can TRY to make some SOLID theories from it. You keep pretending that you totally, like, understand all the sciency stuff, when there are hundreds of climate scientists that can't even agree on the veracity of the data NOR the accuracy of the models used to TRY to predict and explain what's happening with our climate.


There's a lot of SOLID data. Like that 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html)

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average.


As far as the tax website goes, are you disputing that Al Gore said what he said about our oceans rising? Or are you disputing that it didn't happen and that we're now living underwater?

You do know that Gore is not a scientist, right? He used weasel words.

Here's a reasonable discussion about it: (http://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/)

His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause at 20-foot rise in sea level “in the near future.”

There is no use in arguing about global warming with nic, this is like a religion to him and others like him.

There is no use in arguing about global warming with nic, this is like a religion to him and others like him.

There's plenty of "use" if you have evidence. Trouble is, you have none.

You have no understanding of the science so why even bother to post here?

Do you still think there's no difference between biological and fossil fuel CO2?

There's a lot of SOLID data. Like that 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html)
Prove to me that this warming is man made, and I will change my mind.
Until then, I see this whole movement as nothing more then a money/power grab.
And the people who believe in it, as nothing more then a bunch of gullible fools buying snake oil.

There's a lot of SOLID data. Like that 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html)

Can't open link here. Internet has been flaky. I'll look later.



You do know that Gore is not a scientist, right? He used weasel words.

Here's a reasonable discussion about it: (http://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/)

So you're saying that even though he's a politician, and he's the one promoting laws that make him money and cost us money, we should forgive him because he's a politician and that we should just swallow this whole thing? Seems like most players wanting to prove MMGW use weasel words.

There is no use in arguing about global warming with nic, this is like a religion to him and others like him.

That was easy to spot from his first post. I just want to have quoted him so when the earth doesn't come crashing down in the next 10 years, and when the trend either reverses or continues so slowly as to be completely ignored in 10 years, that he'll look like a fool.

If there is truly solid evidence that this is occuring, I'd be on board, but it's just another excuse for our government to use pseudoscience to take cash from our pockets. Maybe Nic is one of them.

There's plenty of "use" if you have evidence. Trouble is, you have none.

You have no understanding of the science so why even bother to post here?

Do you still think there's no difference between biological and fossil fuel CO2?

I'm listening. Explain why they're different and why I should care.

And there are papers that show that the observed increased temperatures are not due solely to solar activity.

That what the 1% non-solar figure is for. 1% in science is still a big number. But still, around 99% of earth temps. is due to the billions of kilowatts of heat energy from the Sun. This is why Venus and Mercury are over 300 F and Earth nights are cooler. Venus does contain CO2, but solar energy is the greatest factor on planet temps.

Prove to me that this warming is man made, and I will change my mind.
Until then, I see this whole movement as nothing more then a money/power grab.
And the people who believe in it, as nothing more then a bunch of gullible fools buying snake oil.

Prove to you? That would be a fool's errand.

You wouldn't understand the evidence staring you in the face.

So you're saying that even though he's a politician, and he's the one promoting laws that make him money and cost us money, we should forgive him because he's a politician and that we should just swallow this whole thing? Seems like most players wanting to prove MMGW use weasel words.

The scientists don't use weasel words. But you wouldn't know about that cause you don't read the scientific journals.



That was easy to spot from his first post. I just want to have quoted him so when the earth doesn't come crashing down in the next 10 years, and when the trend either reverses or continues so slowly as to be completely ignored in 10 years, that he'll look like a fool.

You're the one who looks like a fool cause no one says the Earth will "come crashing down in the next 10 years."

More like extensive flooding in the next 100 years.


If there is truly solid evidence that this is occuring, I'd be on board, but it's just another excuse for our government to use pseudoscience to take cash from our pockets. Maybe Nic is one of them.


Do you really think you're familiar with all the evidence out there?


I'm listening. Explain why they're different and why I should care.

Read this thread. It's been explained many times. If you care to understand.

That what the 1% non-solar figure is for. 1% in science is still a big number. But still, around 99% of earth temps. is due to the billions of kilowatts of heat energy from the Sun. This is why Venus and Mercury are over 300 F and Earth nights are cooler. Venus does contain CO2, but solar energy is the greatest factor on planet temps.
Then explain why Mercury is cooler than Venus. :scratch:
Also explain why Venus doesn't cool at night and why the Earth stays warmer than Mercury at night.
Solar energy is 100% of the cause of planetary heating where there is no longer a melted hot radioactive core. Yet it is how that heat energy is trapped and/or dissipates that is important.

Then explain why Mercury is cooler than Venus. :scratch:
Also explain why Venus doesn't cool at night and why the Earth stays warmer than Mercury at night.
Solar energy is 100% of the cause of planetary heating where there is no longer a melted hot radioactive core. Yet it is how that heat energy is trapped and/or dissipates that is important.


The diff. planet temps are from diff. magnetic fields and atmosphere absorption of solar energy.
Venus is 96% CO2 and weak mag. field, so it absorbs most of the solar energy.
Earth is .04% CO2 and strong field, so it reflects way more solar energy than Venus.

What if we removed the Sun, would the planet temps. remain the same fro Earth, Merc. , Venus?

For the rest of your questions look them up, your smart enough to use google and post questions that you have answers to. :nod:

The diff. planet temps are from diff. magnetic fields and atmosphere absorption of solar energy.
Venus is 96% CO2 and weak mag. field, so it absorbs most of the solar energy.
Earth is .04% CO2 and strong field, so it reflects way more solar energy than Venus.

What if we removed the Sun, would the planet temps. remain the same fro Earth, Merc. , Venus?

For the rest of your questions look them up, your smart enough to use google and post questions that you have answers to. :nod:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

I don't need to google any answers since I already know them. I wanted to see if you could make the proper connection or if you needed to add an "i" to your username.

Venus and Mercury have about the same magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field is not important in this discussion because it really only has an effect on charged particle. Magnetism doesn't affect heat.

Venus is hotter than Mercury in both daytime and nighttime because it has an atmosphere that traps solar radiation (co2). Earth is warm at night because it has an atmosphere with greenhouse gases that keeps residual solar heat from escaping.

Prove to you? That would be a fool's errand.

You wouldn't understand the evidence staring you in the face.
Sure I would, I just need hard proof, not speculation.

Sure I would, I just need hard proof, not speculation.

Prove it. You didn't even understand the difference between biological and fossil fuel CO2 after it was explained several times.

What's your level of science education? Even take HS Physics?

There is no use in arguing about global warming with nic, this is like a religion to him and others like him.Why wouldn't they?

And that's the thing. You don't say it's "not due to solar activity." You say "not due solely," meaning it is not ruled out as a contributing factor.

Let me put it this way. A carbon tax will disrupt economic activity. That is a 100% certainty, and such disruption will have many dire consequences in itself. I'd like to know how certain we are that such a disruption will in fact significantly slow or stop climate change. Otherwise, if it turns out that even halving man-made CO2 production won't even make a dent against climate change because we've overestimated its actual contribution versus all the other possible contributors out there (everything from the Sun to the magnetic field), we're arguably making a bad move focusing all our energies towards fighting an inevitable rather than figuring out how to adapt to it.

Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't have this figured out. Frankly, what irks me as I read this thread is the arrogance some of you seem to have about this - as if we are masters of this planet, as if we know everything about such a super-complex system and that everything that needs to be known can be summarized in a couple of paragraphs of bubblegum news article - and then insulting those who do not share or even dare to question your view, e.g., citing Dunning-Kruger and "nonsensical" questions. I want you all to consider the possibility... What if you are the ones operating under Dunning-Kruger? What if you have overestimated yourselves and are wrong?
Obviously the sun contributes to warming. It's the main source of energy for earth. That's not what's important here. What's important is that the warming trend CANNOT be explained by the sun. Hence, there's another factor.

If the sun went out, the earth would indeed be cooler. But global warming would be the least of our problems.

You can't have the dunning-kruger effect when you have evidence for your beliefs. That's the entire point.

Oh, really? :lmao: Ok.



I did, just now. If Gore and Pelosi can make shit up out of thin air and manipulated data, then so can I.

The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. That's it. On top of that, volcanic ash can change our climate FAR more intensly than we ever could and we have no way of stopping volcanos.

The earth is pretty good at managing it's own climate, with or without us.

You all are going to look like complete fools when NOTHING significant ever happens in regards to "Global BS Warming". I'll be bringing this post up and rubbing your noses in it.
And those have been shown to not account for the warming.

That what the 1% non-solar figure is for. 1% in science is still a big number. But still, around 99% of earth temps. is due to the billions of kilowatts of heat energy from the Sun. This is why Venus and Mercury are over 300 F and Earth nights are cooler. Venus does contain CO2, but solar energy is the greatest factor on planet temps.
This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. See post 864 above. And DFs response.

The problem isn't the energy we're receiving. It's that the energy that should be leaving, isn't.

Obviously the sun contributes to warming. It's the main source of energy for earth. That's not what's important here. What's important is that the warming trend CANNOT be explained by the sun. Hence, there's another factor.

If the sun went out, the earth would indeed be cooler. But global warming would be the least of our problems.

What's important here is that you still aren't getting my point. I am not looking to debate whether or not climate change exists. I am not looking to debate whether CO2 has an effect on climate. I am debating...or rather, want you to consider...whether other factors, outside of CO2, have an effect on climate. I am debating...or rather, want you to consider...whether climate change is something that can really be stopped or even significantly slowed by Man...and, if you think it can be, the odds of success.

After all, rational decisions ought to be made on cost-benefit analysis, not on scare stories. If you can guarantee to me that purposely disrupting the worldwide economy, effecting billions of lives and resulting in the deaths of millions in a butterfly effect, will stop, significantly slow or reverse climate change which will, in turn, save a lot more people in the long run, hey, you can put me down for it. However, if it doesn't pan out and climate change happens anyway, the cost was obviously too high for no benefit.

Frankly, change does happen. It would be folly to assume that the planet would stay constant if not for human intervention. This planet has undergone huge changes before humans, and it will undergo huge changes during and after humans. We don't always cause it. We also can't always prevent it.

You can't have the dunning-kruger effect when you have evidence for your beliefs. That's the entire point.

C'mon, what you have isn't evidence. What you have is a hypothesis (or, to use your own word, "beliefs"). The evidence is independent, and you're just working off it. Take a murder investigation, for instance. There's a dead body and a crime scene. That's the evidence. From that, theories are developed to explain how it happened. The existence of the dead body (the evidence) does not automatically validate every theory as correct, even if every theory results in said dead body.

Prove it. You didn't even understand the difference between biological and fossil fuel CO2 after it was explained several times.

What's your level of science education? Even take HS Physics?

Was I even debating this with you? I read back through that other thread and didn't notice myself getting into that one.

However I did notice you took a similar condescending approch to another poster in that thread though...

The science is very complex and you're expecting to understand it?

Study climatology for several years, get your PhD, and then you might begin to understand.

What am I supposed to be proving again?

What's important here is that you still aren't getting my point. I am not looking to debate whether or not climate change exists. I am not looking to debate whether CO2 has an effect on climate. I am debating...or rather, want you to consider...whether other factors, outside of CO2, have an effect on climate. I am debating...or rather, want you to consider...whether climate change is something that can really be stopped or even significantly slowed by Man...and, if you think it can be, the odds of success.

After all, rational decisions ought to be made on cost-benefit analysis, not on scare stories. If you can guarantee to me that purposely disrupting the worldwide economy, effecting billions of lives and resulting in the deaths of millions in a butterfly effect, will stop, significantly slow or reverse climate change which will, in turn, save a lot more people in the long run, hey, you can put me down for it. However, if it doesn't pan out and climate change happens anyway, the cost was obviously too high for no benefit.

Frankly, change does happen. It would be folly to assume that the planet would stay constant if not for human intervention. This planet has undergone huge changes before humans, and it will undergo huge changes during and after humans. We don't always cause it. We also can't always prevent it.

But we are causing change by pumping giga-tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

We can change that at some significant effort.


C'mon, what you have isn't evidence. What you have is a hypothesis (or, to use your own word, "beliefs"). The evidence is independent, and you're just working off it. Take a murder investigation, for instance. There's a dead body and a crime scene. That's the evidence. From that, theories are developed to explain how it happened. The existence of the dead body (the evidence) does not automatically validate every theory as correct, even if every theory results in said dead body.

There is a lot more evidence than just the "dead body."

Are you claiming that you've reviewed all the journal articles and found no evidence?

Was I even debating this with you? I read back through that other thread and didn't notice myself getting into that one.

Really? I seem to remember several snide comments from you while cheering 'cane's supposed refutation of the difference.


However I did notice you took a similar condescending approch to another poster in that thread though...

What's your point? Are you expecting someone here to scour the available journals and pick out all the evidence and interpret it so a scientifically ignorant layman will be convinced?

Sorry, you're gonna have to do some of the work yourself. Take a college course, at least.



What am I supposed to be proving again?

That you have enough of an understanding of science to understand basic scientific arguments as you claim.

Did you take HS Physics, or not?

The important thing I will bring up (out of the blue) is that there are multiple questions even if we accept that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

1) How strong is the effect? There is a big uncertainty on this.

2) Are there possible feedbacks that could make the effect non-linear? Will plant growth increase over several generations, including algae growth? Is there a tipping point that will make the warming effect stronger (Water+CO2)?

3) What are the negative effects? How bad is the flooding? What land will be no longer arable?

4) What are the positive effects? How much gain will occur with the opening of the Northwest Passage year round? What land will become arable?

5) What is the cost to change things now?

6) What is the cost to change things in the future (depending on whether or not or how much we change things now and what we observe over the next couple of decades)?

7) What is the optimal solution to this complex problem?

What's important here is that you still aren't getting my point. I am not looking to debate whether or not climate change exists. I am not looking to debate whether CO2 has an effect on climate. I am debating...or rather, want you to consider...whether other factors, outside of CO2, have an effect on climate. I am debating...or rather, want you to consider...whether climate change is something that can really be stopped or even significantly slowed by Man...and, if you think it can be, the odds of success.

After all, rational decisions ought to be made on cost-benefit analysis, not on scare stories. If you can guarantee to me that purposely disrupting the worldwide economy, effecting billions of lives and resulting in the deaths of millions in a butterfly effect, will stop, significantly slow or reverse climate change which will, in turn, save a lot more people in the long run, hey, you can put me down for it. However, if it doesn't pan out and climate change happens anyway, the cost was obviously too high for no benefit.

Frankly, change does happen. It would be folly to assume that the planet would stay constant if not for human intervention. This planet has undergone huge changes before humans, and it will undergo huge changes during and after humans. We don't always cause it. We also can't always prevent it.


Those factors have been considered. And no other factor or combination of factors can explain it.


C'mon, what you have isn't evidence. What you have is a hypothesis (or, to use your own word, "beliefs"). The evidence is independent, and you're just working off it. Take a murder investigation, for instance. There's a dead body and a crime scene. That's the evidence. From that, theories are developed to explain how it happened. The existence of the dead body (the evidence) does not automatically validate every theory as correct, even if every theory results in said dead body.

Nice. 5 decades of scientific research, tossed to the curb.

The important thing I will bring up (out of the blue) is that there are multiple questions even if we accept that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

1) How strong is the effect? There is a big uncertainty on this.


Can you clarify how you want an answer? And what do you mean by uncertainty? Among who? Nobody debates the existence of the greenhouse effect.


2) Are there possible feedbacks that could make the effect non-linear? Will plant growth increase over several generations, including algae growth? Is there a tipping point that will make the warming effect stronger (Water+CO2)?

There surely are. And many papers that address them.

3) What are the negative effects? How bad is the flooding? What land will be no longer arable?

With every degree of temperature increase, the oceans rise up a foot due to thermal expansion of water alone. Nothing to do with ice melting. Coastal cities will be buried.

4) What are the positive effects? How much gain will occur with the opening of the Northwest Passage year round? What land will become arable?


And with new land requires new infrastructure which reuires huge amounts of cash. Not to mention the political effects ie starting new countries, war for new land, etc.


7) What is the optimal solution to this complex problem?

If we knew, there wouldn't be so much trouble.