Language fanboyism on /.



  •  @bob171123 said:

    Look, buddy, is it temperature or carbon dioxide that drives the Earth's climate? As far as I know, CO2 does not react with ice to melt it, it doesn't cause plants to wither away and destroy crops, and in the atmosphere it is nowhere near the concentrations needed to cause humans any direct harm.
    You’re debating climate change and you don’t know what the greenhouse effect is? Dear lord…

     

     

    @bob171123 said:

    You are correct in your assessment of my argument.
    Then you need to read the link I posted.



  • No you need to read my post, since I clearly discussed the greenhouse effect, and no I didn't misunderstand it. Would you disagree that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? Then why don't you read this link I posted. Carbon dioxide is the gas humans have the most influence over, while water vapor is the most significant, and our effect on that is neglible. Considering all the greenhouse gases present in our atmosphere, water contributes 36% of the greenhouse effect, while carbon dioxide contributes 9%, and that's only counting water vapor, not the water condensed in clouds. With those numbers, why should I be forced to radically change my lifestyle? If you're still not convinced, read this article. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have levelled out and may even start decreasing, without the need of a global agreement to force cap and trade. Methane is still a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is market forces, the better exploration and management of fossil fuels and landfills, that are being attributed to this decline. You know, since the people responsible for those emissions started seeing profitability in generating energy from methane.



  • @bob171123 said:

    No you need to read my post, since I clearly discussed the greenhouse effect, and no I didn't misunderstand it. Would you disagree that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? Then why don't you read this link I posted.
    That’s the first time you’ve provided a link to that, so I’ll assume you meant to stop two words early. As far as your understanding of the greenhouse effect goes, what you basically tried to claim is that since water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas, CO2 concentrations are irrelevant, which is a hugely naïve and overly-simplistic view of how complex systems interact. See next paragraph.

    @bob171123 said:

    Carbon dioxide is the gas humans have the most influence over, while water vapor is the most significant, and our effect on that is neglible. Considering all the greenhouse gases present in our atmosphere, water contributes 36% of the greenhouse effect, while carbon dioxide contributes 9%, and that's only counting water vapor, not the water condensed in clouds. With those numbers, why should I be forced to radically change my lifestyle?
    Again you’ve failed to follow my request to not bring up points that are already addressed by New Scientist’s climate change section. I said “please”, now I’m just going to have to be rude if you keep doing it.

    @bob171123 said:

    If you're still not convinced, read this article.

    What is it you’re trying to convince me of? You keep skipping around so much I’m having trouble keeping up. You were just talking about how water vapour is the cause of all our climate change, but I have to infer that you’re referring to your argument that the free market solves everything. I think it’s great that methane is being used as a fuel instead of simply being dumped into the atmosphere, but guess what burning it produces? That’s right, our good friend CO2! So, hey, kudos to your free market for solving our global warming problem by taking one greenhouse gas and replacing it with another one. Now I can sleep soundly at night knowing that we’re only pumping large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Oh, wait, damn.



  • @snover said:

    What is it you’re trying to convince me of? You keep skipping around so much I’m having trouble keeping up. You were just talking about how water vapour is the cause of all our climate change, but I have to infer that you’re referring to your argument that the free market solves everything. I think it’s great that methane is being used as a fuel instead of simply being dumped into the atmosphere, but guess what burning it produces? That’s right, our good friend CO2! So, hey, kudos to your free market for solving our global warming problem by taking one greenhouse gas and replacing it with another one. Now I can sleep soundly at night knowing that we’re only pumping large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Oh, wait, damn.

     

    You say that I'm simplifying things to the point of misrepresenting them, yet you try to boil down the whole global warming argument to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It is way more complicated than that, and perhaps that's why I appear to be bouncing around to you. I'm trying to cover all the climate change bases, yet you've been brainwashed to believe that only CO2 matters. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas. What does that make CO2? Oh yeah, that just makes CO2 the gas that all animal species on Earth breath out, and a gas that is moderately good at reflecting infrared radiation when compared with other gases present in significant concentrations in our atmosphere.



  • You keep saying you've addressed arguements, but you haven't. For example, you tried to use the difference between .3% and .5% IMR to disprove my trend of 20% to .3%. Either it works that way or it doesn't. That's the same type of logic that lets denialists say the recent record snowfall in Baltimore disproves global warming. Pick a side.

    @snover said:

    Again you’ve failed to follow my request to not bring up points that are already addressed by New Scientist’s climate change section. I said “please”, now I’m just going to have to be rude if you keep doing it.
     

    [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html[/url]

     [url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/[/url]

    How much change can we ethically force on the world based on the growth rate of 12 trees? 

     

    [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html [/url]

     I bet that explanation works on people who never heard of the Hatch-Slack pathway! Unfortunately, a few years ago I got involved in aquatic gardening, which led me to the work of Tom Barr, which lead me to study how different plants uptake carbon. The practical side of which means I can safely call BS on this link as well- Yes, increased Co2 Levels would have only increase the growth of plants that use C4 carbon fixation by a small amount. Can you name one? The 95+% of the vegetative biomass that uses C3 carbon fixation, however, has the potential for an massive increase. I've seen 400% increases in Elodea growth rates at Co2 concentrations of 30PPM in my own living room. 

    Got a better Global Warmists myth page? Or should we continue to dismantle this one?

    How many [url="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iff46ra1X3B9m0rMediJS1AqSPug"]puppies do I have to kill[/url] to be able to keep my prius? What if I don't eat them?



  • @cdosrun said:

    How many puppies do I have to kill to be able to keep my prius? What if I don't eat them?

     

    See that's my main beef with all the alarmists. It's not enough that we switch to more fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs. We have to alter our lifestyle so extensively that they will most likely be happy when we return to the caves and brave the elements. We even have to go back to the times before we domesticated animals, so no dogs to help us out on the hunt and no cows for us to eat (because they belch too much methane).


Log in to reply