Originally posted by @sonhouseThe Pliocene Epoch is a good example. Close to the same amount of CO2 as now. The difference in climate is astonishing, but you ignore it as meaningless. Any person without partisan bias can see it deserves notice. It is completely meaningless to you because it doesn't support your bias and you would rather not think about it. It is called cognitive dissonance. Whenever something starts to make you question a long held belief you avoid it and fall back to a default position. That is what you do with consensus again and again after facts fail you. Then you do the opposite and abandon consensus and default to websites that are proven unreliable like that skeptical science link plagued with false info. When you fail there you digress again and still fail.
Political. Right. Can't you come up with a better pejorative than that?
You really are predictable.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainI'm proud of you. You did better that time. It's still a one off, the Pliocene thing didn't happen again, and there is some doubt what you said is even true, there are other interpretations of the events back then.
The Pliocene Epoch is a good example. Close to the same amount of CO2 as now. The difference in climate is astonishing, but you ignore it as meaningless. Any person without partisan bias can see it deserves notice. It is completely meaningless to you because it doesn't support your bias and you would rather not think about it. It is called cognitive dis ...[text shortened]... false info. When you fail there you digress again and still fail.
You really are predictable.
You are basing an entire climate change theory on one event and you don't know the whole history, like how much methane there was or other greenhouse gasses. You take one example that jives with your pre-conceived notions and you run with it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257818917_Large-scale_features_of_Pliocene_climate_Results_from_the_Pliocene_Model_Intercomparison_Project
This is a huge work, but there is one salient point made, a quote from that piece:
''No model includes all possible feedbacks even on short timescales. For example, feedbacks associated with atmospheric chemistry, non-CO2 greenhouse gasses, and aerosols are only just beginning to be included in state of the art models."
In other words the work is not complete and for you to be pinning your entire climate change theory on the Pliocene is not applicable to modern day climate.
Also in other words, you are basing your judgement on old research.
Originally posted by @humyThe Dunning-Kruger effect refers specifically to someone overestimating their knowledge of a topic due to a lack of knowledge about that topic (or vice-versa). In the case of Metal Brain, he only has a high school diploma from some Midwest high school, and is simply not capable of sound judgement with respect to scientific findings. His view of science is probably just a bunch of guys in white lab coats hanging around in a lab and shouting "Eureka!" after they have agreed on something.
Thanks for that.
Haven't yet worked out the difference in meaning between "illusory superiority" and the "Dunning-Kruger effect" although the two are obviously closely related.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhy must you resort to trolling? Is it because you have nothing to offer?
The Dunning-Kruger effect refers specifically to someone overestimating their knowledge of a topic due to a lack of knowledge about that topic (or vice-versa). In the case of Metal Brain, he only has a high school diploma from some Midwest high school, and is simply not capable of sound judgement with respect to scientific findings. His view of science ...[text shortened]... te lab coats hanging around in a lab and shouting "Eureka!" after they have agreed on something.
Originally posted by @sonhouseYour assertion that I'm basing my judgment on old research is nonsense. It is ONGOING research and your whole argument is based on speculation rather than admitting your ignorance of the Pliocene. What you don't know about the Pliocene is just as important as what you do know and methane is something you should not overlook right now. It is probably the cause of warmer nights and CO2 had very little effect. I have been saying that for some time now and I'm sure humy remembers. Here is a link that supports my conclusion.
I'm proud of you. You did better that time. It's still a one off, the Pliocene thing didn't happen again, and there is some doubt what you said is even true, there are other interpretations of the events back then.
You are basing an entire climate change theory on one event and you don't know the whole history, like how much methane there was or other ...[text shortened]... e to modern day climate.
Also in other words, you are basing your judgement on old research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180621141154.htm
The Pliocene had close to the same amount of CO2 today. That means it was other natural causes that made it that warm and NOT CO2. Furthermore, it is very likely that the high CO2 levels in the Pliocene were caused by higher temperatures just as that lag is observed in the ice core samples from colder climates since then.
This is anecdotal evidence that CO2 has a very limited effect on warming the climate. This should be compelling reason for you doubt all that alarmist rhetoric you have been exposed to and have an open mind, but you won't let that happen. You are completely obstinate.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180621141154.htm
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou have the following sentence:
Your assertion that I'm basing my judgment on old research is nonsense. It is ONGOING research and your whole argument is based on speculation rather than admitting your ignorance of the Pliocene. What you don't know about the Pliocene is just as important as what you do know and methane is something you should not overlook right now. It is probably the ...[text shortened]... You are completely obstinate.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180621141154.htm
The Pliocene had close to the same amount of CO2 as today.
According to Wikipedia, the level of carbon dioxide now is 410ppmv (parts per million by volume) [1]. During the Pliocene it has been estimated at 400ppmv [2]. Before industrialization the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere varied between about 200 and 275 ppmv [3].
Your next sentence is:
That means it was other natural causes that made it that warm and NOT CO2.This does not follow. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were measured at about 315 ppmv in 1960, and did not get over 350ppmv until the late eighties [4]. There has been an increase in global average temperatures of 1 Kelvin since 1980 [5]. I'd regard that as pretty conclusive evidence of a correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global warming.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth's_atmosphere
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
[5] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Originally posted by @deepthoughtThere is a problem with your conclusion. Even while CO2 levels increased from the 30s to the 70s the earth cooled.
You have the following sentence:The Pliocene had close to the same amount of CO2 as today.
According to Wikipedia, the level of carbon dioxide now is 410ppmv (parts per million by volume) [1]. During the Pliocene it has been estimated at 400ppmv [2]. Before industrialization the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere varie ...[text shortened]...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
[5] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Also, your global average increase in temps could simply be the "heat island effect". Given that most of your references are wikipedia that is probably the case.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou undercut your own claim by that link. Methane at 13 MILLION tons per year from burning fossil fuels? So ten years, 130 million tons, 20 years 260 million tons, closing in on a billion tons of methane which you know is a much more drastic greenhouse effect gas, some 25 times as severe as CO2.
Your assertion that I'm basing my judgment on old research is nonsense. It is ONGOING research and your whole argument is based on speculation rather than admitting your ignorance of the Pliocene. What you don't know about the Pliocene is just as important as what you do know and methane is something you should not overlook right now. It is probably the ...[text shortened]... You are completely obstinate.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180621141154.htm
Also, from the Wiki link provided by Deepthought:
"Global cooling and Northern hemisphere glaciation onset
Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain global cooling after 3 Ma and the onset of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.
Panama seaway closure[9]
The closure of the Panama seaway (13 Ma–2.5 Ma) increased the salinity contrast between Pacific and Atlantic ocean and the northward oceanic heat transport. Warmer water increased snowfall and possibly Greenland ice sheet volume. However, model simulations suggest reduced ice volume due to increased ablation at the edge of the ice sheet under warmer conditions.[10]
Collapse of permanent El Niño[11]
A permanent El Niño state existed in the early-mid Pliocene. Warmer temperature in the eastern equatorial pacific increased water vapor greenhouse effect and reduced the area covered by highly reflective stratus clouds thus decreasing the albedo of the planet. Propagation of El Niño effect through planetary waves may have warmed the polar region and delayed the onset of the northern hemisphere glaciation. Therefore, the appearance of cold surface water in the east equatorial pacific around 3 million years ago may have contributed to global cooling and modified global climate response to Milankovitch cycles.
Uplift of the Rocky mountains and Greenland west coast[10]
Uplift of the Rocky mountains and Greenland west coast may have cooled the climate due to jet stream deflection and increased snowfall due to higher surface elevation.
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide concentration during the mid Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppmv from 13C/12C ratio in organic marine matter[12] and stomatal density of fossilized leaves,[13] decreasing carbon dioxide levels during late Pliocene may have contributed substantially to global cooling and the onset of northern hemisphere glaciation.[10]"
Like I said, conditions back then were a lot different from today, like the Panama link of Atlantic and pacific ocean, which allowed a mixing of salinity from those oceans affecting climate and a permanent El Nino effect.
We don't have conditions like that today, Panama is permanently cut off from connection of oceans and we have El Nino followed La Nina effects wildly affecting climate.
I bet your buddy Singer didn't take either one of those effects into account when he made his politically based assessment of climate in the Pliocene.
Originally posted by @metal-brainThe reference I gave for global average temperatures does not match your statement about temperatures increasing. Most of the increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has happened since 1970 in any case.
There is a problem with your conclusion. Even while CO2 levels increased from the 30s to the 70s the earth cooled.
Also, your global average increase in temps could simply be the "heat island effect". Given that most of your references are wikipedia that is probably the case.
Originally posted by @sonhouseNope. I supported my claim that methane is the main culprit and not CO2. Since you are convinced I am right about methane why are you screaming about CO2? Is it because you falsely believe methane is from burning fossil fuels? That is what you said. It is not true.
You undercut your own claim by that link. Methane at 13 MILLION tons per year from burning fossil fuels? So ten years, 130 million tons, 20 years 260 million tons, closing in on a billion tons of methane which you know is a much more drastic greenhouse effect gas, some 25 times as severe as CO2.
Also, from the Wiki link provided by Deepthought:
"Glob ...[text shortened]... effects into account when he made his politically based assessment of climate in the Pliocene.
I'll give you an opportunity to revise your statement so it is not embarrassingly false.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainCO2 has a much greater effect on climate just due to it's numerical superiority, if Methane has a greenhouse effect 25 times that of CO2 but CO2 outnumbers methane by 1000 to 1 the total effect of methane would be a small fraction of the total generated by CO2. Of course I just put in some numbers at random, not sure the actual ratio but that is the general idea.
Nope. I supported my claim that methane is the main culprit and not CO2. Since you are convinced I am right about methane why are you screaming about CO2? Is it because you falsely believe methane is from burning fossil fuels? That is what you said. It is not true.
I'll give you an opportunity to revise your statement so it is not embarrassingly false.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/
Well looks like methane levels are about 14% of CO2. I never thought it was that high. It also says methane is 100 times greater than CO2 molecule for molecule in short term because Methane deteriorates rather quickly but still 72 times over a 20 year period.
Not sure how accurate this report is but it is an eye opener.
Here is a scientific American article about Methane V CO2:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/
Similar but slightly lower numbers but it does show methane to be a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short term. Methane deteriorates to CO2 in 20 or so years. Which means if we control methane, reduce the amount of man made methane we can rather quickly control the destructive effects of climate change.
Originally posted by @deepthoughtI looked at the links you posted and none of them had a graph that went back more than 1960. That is an incomplete look at the history. I once found a graph that went back much farther and had both CO2 and Temperatures on that graph. That would be the best look at the whole picture. I also need to have verification of your info other than wikipedia. It is known to contain false info at times.
The reference I gave for global average temperatures does not match your statement about temperatures increasing. Most of the increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has happened since 1970 in any case.
Please don't post more than 2 links per post. The last link didn't connect. That is sometimes temporary and I will try later, but 4 links is excessive, especially since none of them was particularly useful in proving anything.
Originally posted by @sonhouseThe assertion that methane is 25 times as potent as CO2 is just an estimate. If if there is evidence of that in the lab it is flawed science to equate that to those gases in the atmosphere.
CO2 has a much greater effect on climate just due to it's numerical superiority, if Methane has a greenhouse effect 25 times that of CO2 but CO2 outnumbers methane by 1000 to 1 the total effect of methane would be a small fraction of the total generated by CO2. Of course I just put in some numbers at random, not sure the actual ratio but that is the genera ...[text shortened]... 72 times over a 20 year period.
Not sure how accurate this report is but it is an eye opener.
Even though CO2 has increased quite a bit it was always at a low percentage of the atmosphere in the first place. We could probably double the levels now and still have very little warming acceleration.
It is the methane leaks you should be worried about, not CO2.
Originally posted by @metal-brainResearch is showing now 25 X but 70 to 100X CO2 effects. It is a worry right now. Not sure why methane has been downplayed, maybe political interference with science, keep fossil fuels flowing forever?
The assertion that methane is 25 times as potent as CO2 is just an estimate. If if there is evidence of that in the lab it is flawed science to equate that to those gases in the atmosphere.
Even though CO2 has increased quite a bit it was always at a low percentage of the atmosphere in the first place. We could probably double the levels now and still ...[text shortened]... very little warming acceleration.
It is the methane leaks you should be worried about, not CO2.
Originally posted by @sonhouseMethane is a fuel and when it is released into the atmosphere it is a waste of good fuel that could be burned. The problem is not that it is burned, it is that it is not burned. It is hard to tax something that is not burned. That is why it is ignored.
Research is showing now 25 X but 70 to 100X CO2 effects. It is a worry right now. Not sure why methane has been downplayed, maybe political interference with science, keep fossil fuels flowing forever?