Comments on: Walrus Latest To Be Threatened By Warming

Sea Ice Melting Leaving Many Stranded On Land, Causing Stampedes, Woes For Other Species

[andor3]

well the CO2Max position, as I understand it, is: the train leaves the station at 12 MPH headed for the arctic. trains are black. carbon is black. god made little green apples. apples are healthy. his SUV is apple green. green practices do not pollute.

therefore global warming is a left-wing, commie conspiracy to take away his big truck!

[co2max]

sorry for the multiple-posts. Connectivity problems here for a moment.

[co2max]

...and on the topic of climate forcing, I offer a simple analogy (in reference to your Occam''s Razor point):
Image climate behavior as a slow-moving freight train. It rumbles through town, speeding and slowly a bit at crossings and congested areas. I am the embodiment of carbon dioxide and I want a ride on that freight train. So I ran as fast as I can to catch up to the cattle car and jump frantically to get onto and find once I''m hanging on to get in that several other free-riders are in the car too. My efforts to catch-up to the train and jump into have added ever so slightly to the forward momentum of the train, but it''s hardly measurable. Meanwhile, the train moves on out of town and goes full-bore once it leaves the city limits.
Yes, I agree fully that it is wise not to make a theory overly complex. But it is equally hazardous to dumb-down the explanation to a single component because it''s all you can come up with.

[jimfinster]

andor3:

I honestly want to hear his explanation of why these basic facts do not add up to warming. I do not claim to be an expert on climate change. But I have followed the science over many years, and I do understand the basics. And the basic premise seems exceptionally simple from a scientific standpoint.

The thing is, there is a huge body of peer-reviewed science that supports human-induced climate change. I am willing to rely on that work. Someone like CO2Max just can''t say they disagree and use silly train analogies to make their position. When someone does that, it indicates an ideological position versus a fact based position...

[andor3]

"CO2Max: You should be a politician, because you totally avoided the basic question."

yeah I noticed that too :-). He writes a lot of stuff, but most of the facts are either incorrect or do not support the thesis. I think he misunderstood when you suggested that she publish her wacky theories and calculations--not on a CBS message board though

[andor3]

So this is the tactic of the deniers: offer a sentence that they supposedly captures the opposition argument, then argue with the sentence. Of course, the trick is that the sentence is completely false and a misrepresentation. Here are a few great examples from right here in this forum:

"we have Historians saying we are about to die from an Ice Age,"

"CO2 simply does not store enough energy"

"According to `the Experts`, humanity should have been extinct 100 times by now."

"The alarm over climate change seems to boil down to the panic over rising seas around the world"

[jimfinster]

Senator CO2Max:

You should be a politician, because you totally avoided the basic question.

You agreed with every point, and the logical conclusion is that the resultant CO2 would increase temperature. Yes or no? If no, why not?

[jimfinster]

CO2Max:

If the train does not matter, go stand on the tracks in front of it :)

[jimfinster]

The World Meteorological Organization''s (WMO) 2005 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, published Nov. 3, says quantities of CO2 were measured at 379.1 parts per million (ppm), up 0.53 per cent from 377.1 ppm in 2004.

That is 2 ppm per year by my calculator. CO2 increases are accelerating due to developing countries like China.

[co2max]

...and on the topic of climate forcing, I offer a simple analogy (in reference to your Occam''s Razor point):
Image climate behavior as a slow-moving freight train. It rumbles through town, speeding and slowly a bit at crossings and congested areas. I am the embodiment of carbon dioxide and I want a ride on that freight train. So I ran as fast as I can to catch up to the cattle car and jump frantically to get onto and find once I''m hanging on to get in that several other free-riders are in the car too. My efforts to catch-up to the train and jump into have added ever so slightly to the forward momentum of the train, but it''s hardly measurable. Meanwhile, the train moves on out of town and goes full-bore once it leaves the city limits.
Yes, I agree fully that it is wise not to make a theory overly complex. But it is equally hazardous to dumb-down the explanation to a single component because it''s all you can come up with.

[jimfinster]

CO2Max:

You should be a politician, because you totally avoided the basic question.

You agreed with every point, and the logical conclusion is that the resultant CO2 would increase temperature. Yes or no? If no, why not?

hawksprings: When you fly on the plane, do you make it a point to visit the Boeing factory first to make sure they''re building planes according to your specifications? Do you ask to sit in on a surgery or two to make sure doctors know what they''re doing before you get your tonsils out? Yes, compared to climatologists, you don''t have a clue. and neither do I. How foolish it is to presume that you can flip to Wiki or the Limbaugh Letters and discover something about climate change that the world''s top scientists haven''t already considered. The "stupid" person is the one that thinks everyone has the same level of education, and science is determined by popular vote.

[co2max]

jimfinster-
Gladly I shall address your points:
1) Global carbon emissions are now about 7 billion metric tons per year.
7 BILLION TONS IS A BIG NUMBER BUT ON A PROPORTIONAL BASIS, IT IS JUST A DROP IN A BIG BUCKET. I''M NOT IMPRESSED.
2) Carbon combines with O to form CO2.
TRUE. THIS IS A SIDE-BAR HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE FACT.
3) Atmospheric CO2 levels increase several ppm each year at present.
ANNUAL INCREASE OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS APPROX 1.3ppm. As Roy Spencer pointed out in his book on the subject: ''given that we now have a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of about 38/100,000, it will take about 6-7 years for that concentration to move to 39/100,000. This is not a saturation scenario. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and will be so for millennia to come.
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. i.e., it retains heat.
CORRECT AGAIN. SO IS METHANE, NITROUS OXIDE, OZONE, etc. WHY BE SO CAPTIVATED BY THIS ONE COMPONENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE, EXCEPT THAT CONTROLLING IT ALSO ENABLES CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR LIKE NO OTHER SINGLE ENTITY AFFORDS?

[andor3]

"I know it drives Jimfinster crazy when I refer to a local weather event to downplay Global Warming..."

It doesn''t drive anyone crazy, but shows either you have no idea what global warming is about and you refuse to listen or comprehend. So you are wasting a lot of peoples valuable time. And it is becoming clear that is exactly your agenda--waste valuable time by aggressive ignorance.

[jimfinster]

hawksprings:

I see you are still struggling with the weather vs climate thing :)

[hawksprings]

I started grade school in 1970. From that time until now, I have been CONSTANTLY told of humanity''s impending doom, or the Earth''s impending doom from all our activity on this planet.

The list of things that were going to kill us all goes on and on.

One common factor in all of these impending calamities was that the experts were not to be questioned by us peons. We''re too stupid, we don''t understand the science, we can''t grasp the complexities.

According to "the Experts", humanity should have been extinct 100 times by now.

The latest fad in this on-going drama is Human-Caused Global Warming.

By the way, it''s 15 degrees and snowing where I live.
We''re above normal for snowfall so far this season, and almost all of the reporting locations in the mountains in Wyo and Colorado are above normal or far above normal for snowpack.

I know it drives Jimfinster crazy when I refer to a local weather event to downplay Global Warming, but when will it get to where I live? I''m looking forward to lower heating bills.

[jimfinster]

CO2Max

Consider the following empirical facts:

1) Global carbon emissions are now about 7 billion metric tons per year.
2) Carbon combines with O to form CO2.
3) Atmospheric CO2 levels increase several ppm each year at present.
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. i.e., it retains heat.

So, concisely explain why the above facts would NOT cause an increase in global temperatures. I sincerely wish to hear your explanation, because this seems like high school chemistry class to me.

Remember Occam''''''''s Razor?

[co2max]

The alarm over climate change seems to boil down to the panic over rising seas around the world. Maybe it is better to accept the bitter truth that many of our biggest and most popular cities are simply built in the wrong place, situated where they are based on bad ideas.
And since I sense that the alarm over this issue has to do also with changing climatic zones around the earth and the shifting of habitats, well, what else is new? These changes have been taking place frequently in many areas since the beginning of recorded history and before. Consider as well that the rise of the oceans of several hundred feet also raises the entire envelope of the earth''s atmosphere by the same amount. 400 feet of upward rise can mean considerable change in habitat for many species. That vertical component, by its own merits, represents a 1-degree change in general climate, all due to upward movement. I have heard and read about all kinds of consequences due to climate change and the effects of sea-level rise, but so far no one has thought to mention the results of atmosphere elevation. Stay tuned, it will be addressed.
Huh!

[jimfinster]

CO2 simply does not store enough energy. It rises by several PPM a year but several Parts per million is so slight that its virtually irrelevant compared to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
posted by cbscrash07

Publish your calculations in support of your statement, and you will be famous. Or maybe share those calculations with us? Or if you did not actually do the calculations, provide a credible link to someone who did? In a peer-reviewed journal, of course. Thanks.

[hillaryin08]

Maybe they could go live with man-bear-pig?