Dr Euan Nisbet - Methane Climate Termination [a technical word] Event - Wetlands are turning on - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15297158
Steve_American wrote:OK, now I can reply, because now you actually said something.

I always say something, and it is always informative and usually entertaining. Unlike your "contributions."
You are doing a calculation with your gut. Sort of like a "gut feeling".

No, I am identifying the quantitative implications of the data you referenced.
The flaw in your reasoning is that you don't understand why the earth is covered with snow and ice. The reason is that the snow and ice are white and reflect 90% or more of the sun's energy back into space before it heats up the rocks or water.

That only describes what the snowball-earth climate was, not why it happened -- which we do not know.
This is totally different from the situation now.

Right: back then there was far less water vapor in the air because it was so cold. Therefore, additional CO2 will have far less effect now because IR absorption spectra are already saturated by water vapor.
So, your gut is useless as a guide.

Unlike yours, my gut is educated in the subject of atmospheric physics, able to consider the facts rationally, and competent to do some ballpark calculations.
IIRC, I read once in a snowball earth article decades ago, that if the eart gets ice and snow from the 60 deg. latitude to both poles, then so much of the dun's energy s reflected that the rest of the planet will freeze over almost no matter how much GHGs are in the air.

No, we know with absolute certainty that that did not happen, because the fossil record shows life went on. Therefore, there must have been liquid water at the earth's surface.
That should help you understand the awesome power of the albedo effect.

I understand the albedo effect incomparably better than you, as I have proved.

However, your position is set, so you must find a way to say I'm wrong.
#15297205
Truth To Power wrote:1] I always say something, and it is always informative and usually entertaining. Unlike your "contributions."

2] No, I am identifying the quantitative implications of the data you referenced.

3] That only describes what the snowball-earth climate was, not why it happened -- which we do not know.

4] Right: back then there was far less water vapor in the air because it was so cold. Therefore, additional CO2 will have far less effect now because IR absorption spectra are already saturated by water vapor.

5] Unlike yours, my gut is educated in the subject of atmospheric physics, able to consider the facts rationally, and competent to do some ballpark calculations.

6] No, we know with absolute certainty that that did not happen, because the fossil record shows life went on. Therefore, there must have been liquid water at the earth's surface.

7] I understand the albedo effect incomparably better than you, as I have proved.

8] However, your position is set, so you must find a way to say I'm wrong.


1] Bullcrap.

2] Using your gut feeling.

3] Wrong. We do know the main reason the snowball earth happened several times after green plants started converting CO2 into O2 and sugar and other organic solids. For you alone I'll explain the why. Its because converting CO2 to sugar reduces the amount of CO2 left in the air. And at that time there were few or no animals to eat the plants to convert the sugar into CO2 again.

4] So, no water vapor i the air mean that much more CO2 is necessary to get the melting started, but once it starts, more water will evaporate so the amount of water vapor in the air will increase to speed up the melting a lot. But, what matters for the amount of CO2 in the air to get the melting started in the amount of water vapor at the instant, not a year later.

5] Bullcrap. Yjere is no evidence that your gut is good in this instance.

6] Yes, there was life and it didn't become extinct. At that time there were no animals that could fossil ize and no life on land at all. The oceans almost totally froze over, but enough light did penetrate the ice to keep green plants from all dying over the millions of years that the ice remained. So, small areas of water are possible. I never said that all the water at the bottom of the oceans froze. The black and the white smokers would have still been spewing out very hot water.

7] You have proved no such thing. You got several facts wrong and drew some incorrect conclusions.

8] I wrote, "However, your position is set, so you must find a way to say I'm wrong." Lurkers, he didn't even respond to this point.
#15297551
Steve_American wrote:1] Bullcrap.

Fact.
2] Using your gut feeling.

False. Using known facts and logic.
3] Wrong. We do know the main reason the snowball earth happened several times after green plants started converting CO2 into O2 and sugar and other organic solids. For you alone I'll explain the why. Its because converting CO2 to sugar reduces the amount of CO2 left in the air. And at that time there were few or no animals to eat the plants to convert the sugar into CO2 again.

No, that is merely one hypothesis contrived to support the CO2 climate narrative, not established knowledge.
4] So, no water vapor i the air mean that much more CO2 is necessary to get the melting started,

No, it means that much less CO2 is necessary to effect a given temperature increase.
but once it starts, more water will evaporate so the amount of water vapor in the air will increase to speed up the melting a lot.

Right: once there is significant water vapor in the air, CO2 becomes almost irrelevant to temperature.
But, what matters for the amount of CO2 in the air to get the melting started in the amount of water vapor at the instant, not a year later.

No idea what you incorrectly imagine yourself to be saying, here.
5] Bullcrap. Yjere is no evidence that your gut is good in this instance.

Fact. The evidence is available to anyone who can find a willingness to look out their window and know what they see there.
6] Yes, there was life and it didn't become extinct. At that time there were no animals that could fossil ize and no life on land at all. The oceans almost totally froze over, but enough light did penetrate the ice to keep green plants from all dying over the millions of years that the ice remained. So, small areas of water are possible. I never said that all the water at the bottom of the oceans froze. The black and the white smokers would have still been spewing out very hot water.

That is speculation, not established fact.
7] You have proved no such thing. You got several facts wrong and drew some incorrect conclusions.

Those claims are all false.
8] I wrote, "However, your position is set, so you must find a way to say I'm wrong." Lurkers, he didn't even respond to this point.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I turned it right back on you, but you were so oblivious, you didn't realize it.
#15297573
Truth To Power wrote:Fact.

False. Using known facts and logic.

No, that is merely one hypothesis contrived to support the CO2 climate narrative, not established knowledge.

No, it means that much less CO2 is necessary to effect a given temperature increase.

Right: once there is significant water vapor in the air, CO2 becomes almost irrelevant to temperature.

No idea what you incorrectly imagine yourself to be saying, here.

Fact. The evidence is available to anyone who can find a willingness to look out their window and know what they see there.

That is speculation, not established fact.

Those claims are all false.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I turned it right back on you, but you were so oblivious, you didn't realize it.


As usual, TTP, you reply in the form of "No, I'm right and you are wrong; like I said to your last reply."
I try to say something more than "you are wrong and I'm right." However, it's hard to find parts where you said more than "You're wrong."

I found this part this time.

I wrote: 4] So, no water vapor in the air means that much more CO2 is necessary to get the melting started,

TTP replied: No, it means that much less CO2 is necessary to effect a given temperature increase.

TTP, you are wrong. The oceans are mostly covered with ice, so water doesn't evaporate into the air, so the air is dry. With much less water vapor in the air, only CO2 and maybe methane can be added to the air as GHGs. This happens over millions of years from volcanoes. Some water also comes out of the volcanoes but it falls as snow to the ice on the surface. CO2 and methane stay behind in the air.
So, without almost any water vapor in the air, it takes a lot more CO2 to start the melting, just like I said.

How is it that you can't understand this simple fact?

I'm sorry in #6 of my reply there is a typo. The "in" should be "is". This is a common typo of mine.
#15297597
Truth To Power wrote:….The evidence is available to anyone who can find a willingness to look out their window and know what they see there.


I am looking out the window and I see that there is barely any snow. This is odd for Edmonton in December.
#15297613
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am looking out the window and I see that there is barely any snow. This is odd for Edmonton in December.

Not very. Unless you know the mean and standard deviation for depth of snow on the ground in Edmonton in early December -- which you don't -- you have no basis for claiming it is odd.
#15297616
Truth To Power wrote:Not very. Unless you know the mean and standard deviation for depth of snow on the ground in Edmonton in early December -- which you don't -- you have no basis for claiming it is odd.


I may not, off the top of my head, but weather conditions are recorded and meteorologists and climatologists can look them up.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/ne ... rd-alberta

    ….
    First of all, no, this is not normal. What is typical is for Edmonton International Airport (YEG) to see 17.3 cm of snowfall during November. It's not like we wouldn't normally have cold enough temperatures, either. By this time, daytime highs fall below freezing on average.
    ….

…and…

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton ... -1.7048822

    …..
    Last month, Alberta saw the driest November on record in 140 years, said Alysa Pederson, a meteorologist for Environment and Climate Change Canada.

    The last time Edmonton recorded having zero precipitation was in 1886.

    "It's a pretty rare situation," Pederson said.

    The average temperature high around the end of November into early December is around –4.5 C. But Edmonton's mean temperature, a combination of the high and low combined through the month, was 0.8 C.

    "We were above zero for the entire month of November except for two days, and those two days were Nov. 30 last week and Nov. 22, where we were just below freezing," Pederson said.

    …..

Your standards of evidence changed dramatically.

First, people just had to look outside their window. Now they have to also know all sorts of climate data, which also contradict the claim that there is no anthropogenic climate change.
#15297796
Steve_American wrote:TTP, you are wrong.

Nope.
The oceans are mostly covered with ice, so water doesn't evaporate into the air, so the air is dry. With much less water vapor in the air, only CO2 and maybe methane can be added to the air as GHGs. This happens over millions of years from volcanoes. Some water also comes out of the volcanoes but it falls as snow to the ice on the surface. CO2 and methane stay behind in the air.
So, without almost any water vapor in the air, it takes a lot more CO2 to start the melting, just like I said.

How is it that you can't understand this simple fact?

Because it's false. When there is so little water vapor in the air, it takes much less CO2 to effect a given temperature increase. Think of the blanket analogy again: if you have 20 wool blankets and one cotton blanket on your bed (analogous to the water vapor and CO2 in the modern atmosphere), it would take a lot more cotton blankets to make any difference to how warm you feel. But if there is only one wool blanket and one cotton one (like the snowball earth atmosphere), even one more cotton blanket would make a noticeable difference.
#15297801
Pants-of-dog wrote:I may not, off the top of my head, but weather conditions are recorded and meteorologists and climatologists can look them up.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/ne ... rd-alberta

…and…

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton ... -1.7048822

The notion that Alberta even had provincial weather records worthy of the name 140 years ago is ridiculous; and not suffering any blizzards in November does not strike me as much of a "crisis."
Your standards of evidence changed dramatically.

Nope.
First, people just had to look outside their window. Now they have to also know all sorts of climate data, which also contradict the claim that there is no anthropogenic climate change.

If someone wants to claim a "climate crisis" based on what they see outside their window, they need to have some basis of comparison.
#15297862
Truth To Power wrote:Nope.

Because it's false. When there is so little water vapor in the air, it takes much less CO2 to effect a given temperature increase. Think of the blanket analogy again: if you have 20 wool blankets and one cotton blanket on your bed (analogous to the water vapor and CO2 in the modern atmosphere), it would take a lot more cotton blankets to make any difference to how warm you feel. But if there is only one wool blanket and one cotton one (like the snowball earth atmosphere), even one more cotton blanket would make a noticeable difference.


OK, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. It seems like I'm wrong.

IIRC, water vapor is currently causing about 3 times the heating as CO2 molecule for molecule.

So, maybe if we compare 0.0429% now to 13% we get that 13% is 303 times more than 0.0429%. Because 13% is not exact I can round it to 300 times more.

So, 300/3 = 100; 100 x 0.0429% is 4.29% . So, if there was a normal amount of water vapor in the air of the snowball earth, then just 4.0% to 4.5% would have been enough CO2 and water vapor to start the melting.

So, what is your point? The geologists are accepting that more and more CO2 being added to the air does eventually add up to enough to heat the snowball earth above freezing somewhere. It seems like you are claiming that CO2 has almost no effect, but geologists are acepting the climate scientists' estimates. This adds more scientists who looked at the theory and decided that it is close to true. You OTOH, say it is obviously false.
#15297880
Truth To Power wrote:The notion that Alberta even had provincial weather records worthy of the name 140 years ago is ridiculous; and not suffering any blizzards in November does not strike me as much of a "crisis."

Nope.

If someone wants to claim a "climate crisis" based on what they see outside their window, they need to have some basis of comparison.


Nome of this refutes the fact that evidence of anthropogenic climate change is visible from my window.
#15298001
Pants-of-dog wrote:Explain how.

All previous warming episodes similar to the post-Little-Ice-Age warming episode we are now in were natural. Claiming that the most recent such episode must be man-made because human beings have used fossil fuels in this period is a blatant post hoc fallacy: i.e., it is a claim that because modern warming came after our use of fossil fuels, it must have been caused by our use of fossil fuels. The fact of previous natural warming episodes similar to the modern one proves that the CO2 narrative is a post hoc fallacy. That is why Lyin' Michael Mann had to falsify his hockey stick graph to erase the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and lying AGW scaremongers are constantly trying to remove the MWP -- and the Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period and Holocene Optimum -- from the climate record.
#15298002
late wrote:He will say that they are not causally related.

That is precisely correct. There is no reason to think recent warming somehow has a different cause from all the previous similar warming episodes. To claim that it does is a blatant post hoc fallacy.
Most people on the planet can see the effects of climate change,

As they always have. There is no reason to think this time is different.
the science has never faced a serious challenge,

That's just baldly false.
so he plays word games (aka propaganda)

You can't accuse anyone who is in a discussion with PoD of playing word games.
#15298008
Truth To Power wrote:
That's just baldly false.



During the 80s, scientists were doing the basic work. Then the fighting started. Mostly it was about the details of why it was happening. Around 2000, climatology reached consensus, a couple years later the larger scientific community added their support.

Sleazy, crazy propaganda does not change that.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

@Tainari88 Ok so trade with China has fallen […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Europeans got sick and tired of foreign wars afte[…]

The 57 trucks are mentioned clearly in the quoted […]

How globalization & immigration result in […]