It's going to be cold in California

#51
#51
Let's all argue vocabulary, because the point of the thread doesn't matter.

This is aiken to people turning into the grammar police on this board, just to prove something...anything.
 
#52
#52
therealUT said:
I am not going to apologize for having a superior understanding of the English vocabulary.
Click to expand...

I greatly question your alleged superior understanding. If a trend of years being progressively warmer isn't an indication of warming, I don't know what is. Your dictionary check said:

Evidence:
1 a: an outward sign : indication

EDIT: further clarification: temperature of a single year = datum. Temperatures from several years = data. Trend in temperatures of several years (data) = evidence.

Clever shell game, but no dice on the dictionary deflection.
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
IPorange said:
The point is that for the first time in geologic history, carbon is being pumped out of the Earth and combusted into the atmosphere, changing the make-up of the small zone we inhabit...But this is a new forcing created by man.
Click to expand...
So, I should be led to believe that there were no explosive volanic eruptions prior to the industrial revolution and that those since were created by man...?
 
#54
#54
therealUT said:
So, I should be led to believe that there were no explosive volanic eruptions prior to the industrial revolution and that those since were created by man...?
Click to expand...

Certainly not. That would be utterly ridiculous.

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

As the USGS mentions here, the amount of CO2 volcanoes emit is a tiny fraction of what humans emit through burning fossil fuels.

200 million tonnes of CO2 for volcanoes annually, versus 26.8 billion tonnes for humans.

200,000,000 versus 26,800,000,000. Pretty freaking huge difference.

As a side note, volcanic eruptions have a net cooling effect on the global climate, due to the release of sulfates and also pushing particulates into the upper atmosphere that reflect incoming solar radiation, that also help balance out their green house emissions.
 
#56
#56
IPorange said:
Certainly the sun is the biggest player in the warming of the Earth. Al Gore nor anyone else would ever dispute that.

The strongest greenhouse gas per molecule? Methane. The strongest greenhouse gas as far as total effect? water vapor.

The point is that for the first time in geologic history, carbon is being pumped out of the Earth and combusted into the atmosphere, changing the make-up of the small zone we inhabit. All the other forcings such as the sun and surface albedo and such are always shifting. But this is a new forcing created by man, that is having a measurable impact on the composition of our atmosphere, and the average temperature of our planet.
Click to expand...

Good post...

However, I would like to question one of your points...I think that methane isn't the strongest greenhouse gas per molecule. It is stronger than CO2, but there are many stronger. For example, nitrous oxide has a GWP (global warming potential) of 310 while methane only has a GWP of 72. GWP is based on per mass unit, so because N2O is more massive than CH4, the impact on greenhouse effect per molecule is even more exaggerated (more like 12 to 1 in favor of nitrous oxide rather than 4 to 1 based on mass). Hydrofluorocarbons are even worse (whether on a per mass or per molecule basis). The GWP numbers I used are calculated on a 20-year time horizon.
 
Last edited:
#57
#57
TennTradition said:
Good post...

However, I would like to question one of your points...I think that methane isn't the strongest greenhouse gas per molecule. It is stronger than CO2, but there are many stronger. For example, nitrous oxide has a GWP (global warming potential) of 310 while methane only has a GWP of 72. GWP is based on per mass unit, so because N2O is more massive than CH4, the impact on greenhouse effect per molecule is even more exaggerated (more like 12 to 1 in favor of nitrous oxide than 4 to 1). Hydrofluorocarbons are even worse (whether on a per mass or per molecule basis). The GWP numbers I used are calculated on a 20-year time horizon.
Click to expand...
that's funny stuff.
 
#58
#58
TennTradition said:
Good post...

However, I would like to question one of your points...I think that methane isn't the strongest greenhouse gas per molecule. It is stronger than CO2, but there are many stronger. For example, nitrous oxide has a GWP (global warming potential) of 310 while methane only has a GWP of 72. GWP is based on per mass unit, so because N2O is more massive than CH4, the impact on greenhouse effect per molecule is even more exaggerated (more like 12 to 1 in favor of nitrous oxide than 4 to 1). Hydrofluorocarbons are even worse (whether on a per mass or per molecule basis). The GWP numbers I used are calculated on a 20-year time horizon.
Click to expand...

You're right. I meant naturally occurring greenhouse gases, but I didn't specify.

EDIT: Although nitrous oxide does occur naturally, so just totally whiffed on that one.
 
Last edited:
#59
#59
rjd970 said:
No, I don't.

A 5 year trend is evidence, 150 year trend isn't? We can have a worthless argument all day long about verbiage, but it won't accomplish anything or make either of us more right or wrong. Both are evidence of something happening, just one is more accurate because it is looking at more data. Scientists look at data as evidence that a theory holds water. The accuracy of the data (ie...evidence) is what is questioned.

For example, if data shows continual heating over the last 50 years it can be used as evidence the earth is warming....but if the data shows heating and cooling cycles every 50 years for the last 1000 years, the data supporting the warming claim is incomplete.
Click to expand...

I would like to make the point again that unfortunately, the data we can collect is useless without comparing it to a control (i.e., a model). Science with things the size of a globe is tough because it basically requires this modeling effort to prove that the data is evidence of something.
 
#60
#60
IPorange said:
As a side note, volcanic eruptions have a net cooling effect on the global climate, due to the release of sulfates and also pushing particulates into the upper atmosphere that reflect incoming solar radiation, that also help balance out their green house emissions.
Click to expand...

A temporary cooling effect...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top