Where’s My Global Warming?

Modern submarines routinely operate at levels up to as much as 8000 PPM. The Apollo space crafts 2% represents 20,000 PPM or 50 times the norm . You seem to be having even greater difficulty with simple Math frankly !

 

from a NASA study into CO2 pollution...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029352_2009029386.pdf

hardly the benign problem free gas flogger claims it is...

 

yes...my understanding of "runaway" greenhouse has always been of no return to cooler temps...

 

I was trying to make this point in my post about the conditional argument of authority.

I think there is a genuine lack of understanding about the limitations of the human mind, and its pretty commonplace throughout society. I had to endure quite a bit of mathematical training before I was able to fully appreciate those limits, and they are easy to forget at times. At a certain point in higher education, it becomes crystal clear that one will never master everything even within his or her own field. Eventually, scholars have to pick their poison and specialize in it. So when it comes to say climate science, a proper argument of authority is the only argument I can make with logical consistency. If I name myself an authority, it would be inappropriate since I'm not a climate expert. So in reality, I'd be making an inappropriate authority argument by demanding people convince me with evidence since I don't have the expert knowledge to evaluate the evidence.

 

You should take a class on logic.

An argument from authority is a conditional argument instead of a tautology or contradiction. In other words, the validity of its form depends on conditions being met. Every condition has to be met in order for it to be a valid argument. On the other hand, tautologies are valid regardless of conditions, and contradictions are invalid regardless of conditions.

 

Tell that to your local greenhouse owner. Ideal growing levels are around 3 times those of today.

Apollo 13 CO2 levels were 50 times (not 10) normal before they became life threatening. This is just more clutching at straws

 

Okay I see what you are saying

 

well then let's take out all the co2 scrubbers out of those subs and see how that goes flogger...what do you think the submersible time of a sub would be? oh yeah CO2 that harmless benign natural gas...

edit: geez what am I doing arguing the point, flogger's admitted CO2 is a toxin and not the harmless gas he claimed it was...

 

Sorry thats my bad, miss placed a decimal point

Normal operating on spacecraft is.02 and the mission approached 2%

 

Why would our atmosphere ever require CO2 scrubbers at 400 PPM or even double that ? This is really desperate stuff. Why is the continued demonization of this beneficial trace gas (which is a product of your own respiration cycle) clearly so important to you ?

 

Well, CO2 is still on the rise but the temperatures are not, totally contradicting the "models" of the warming crowd so another explanation had to be invented to protect the reputations of the warmers, something that is a human trait outside of science.

GIGO.

 

Its not just whats happening right now either. They completely ignore the paleoclimatic precedents for this since the last glaciation in favour of shonky failed climate models by a few political crusaders. Today is nothing special in either its level nor rate of change.

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

 

and you have political rhetoric, deniers who failed grade school science and magic(unknown/unexplainable energy forces)vs 150 yrs of scientific research and observed data...hmmmm, yup you win

 

I'm so glad the content of my links (which you obviously opened right ?)finally made you acknowlege your misconceptions.

 

Evidently you have not been keeping up with the times.

 

Yet at the altitude in Venus' atmosphere at which the pressure is 1013 millibar, same as sea level Earth, Venus is STILL hotter than Earth, in spite of the fact that there is actually less solar energy there -- an absolutely enormous 74 W/m² less -- due to its high albedo. So, hugely less solar energy, and higher temperatures mean .... ??? Hmmm. I guess the greenhouse effect is real after all.

 

A skeptic accept evidence that is given, and a zealot rejects all evidence. So yes, you're a denier.

 

Surely you have to present some first in order for me to reject it ?

The Peer review study showing the empirical proof of human culpability for the current warming phase would do for starters

 

I have studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university -- and sorry, but yes, I passed.

Unknown does not mean magic. It doesn't even mean unknowable. And unexplained doesn't mean unexplainable. Until the early 20th century, there was no known mechanism that could power the sun. People who said that something was powering it were not invoking magic or the unexplainable. They were in fact objectively right. They were just honest about what they knew and didn't know. Unlike AGW propagandists.

So you are just makin' $#!+ up. As usual.

There are no observed data that support CO2-based AGW theory, because it is all about models predicting future warming -- and being wrong.

 

Venus's atmosphere is effectively ALL CO2, so even the ordinary physics of energy transfer would imply that Venus's atmosphere at that altitude would be about 20C hotter than earth at sea level. The situation is of course much more complicated than that, especially because of the difference in water abundance and the negative feedback from the hydrological cycle, which dominates on earth but is nonexistent on Venus.

It's only hugely less DIRECT solar energy. The energy is still getting there through atmospheric mixing.

Of course it's real (though "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer), and we even have a pretty good idea of how strong it is (i.e., much weaker than AGW theory requires). I never said otherwise.

 

Nope. It's BEEN a few degrees warmer, and it was called an, "optimum."

LOL! The Gobi and Sahara deserts are actually quite a bit colder than most climates at similar latitudes, because they are both higher and drier. Your knowledge of even the most elementary facts of climatology is woefully lacking.

<yawn> Look at a population density map of the world, then look in a mirror, and tell me how red your face is. Warmer climates are WAY BETTER for human beings. Not surprising, as we evolved in tropical Africa.

Nope. We know colder would be catastrophic, but warmer would actually be better.

 

Yes and the couple of billion who will die in that transition can just go please themselves I guess

 

Good grief what utterly unsustainable nonsense. Do you guys just make this stuff up as you go along ?

 

You dont even know what I am talking about so cut the shocked act. You are really not fooling anyone

 

Total fabrication. There is no reason to believe any such nonsense.