Extreme is the New Normal

[andre9999]

Congratulations to both of you, I no longer care what either side thinks about anything about these issues.

That was pretty funny.

[Kim OHara]

Seeing that this is a discussion only between the two of you, why don't you just take it private? Once you reach the point of demanding apologies from each other, the discussion has devolved awfully far.

As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over.
I was, as patiently as I know how, trying to show Alex *that* he was wrong and *why* he was wrong, right up until he called me a liar - which I think was the only way he could think of shielding himself, at that stage, from critically examining his beliefs, and that's a bit sad.

Kim

[Alex123]

I was, as patiently as I know how, trying to show Alex *that* he was wrong and *why* he was wrong,

Calling what I've said "Junk science" and "bullshit" is not a rational reply.

I'm sorry, Alex, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to slog through the loads of junk science you have put up,
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118359" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alex,
You have slipped back into trusting junk science ahead of the strong consensus of expert opinion...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p112503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course I understand what you meant. I was deliberately being dishonest as an example of of how easy it is, and I said so.
You are still refusing the crucial question I have asked you, andstill showering me with - to put it in frankly Aussie terms - bullshit.
I don't think this conversation can go any further until you address the question, and (as I said before) I am not interested in responding to the bullshit.Over to you.

Kim
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please post a link where you have "shown me wrong" and refuted what I've said point-by-point.

Kim, please answer:
How can 0.001935% human contribution to the atmosphere of the gas that doesn't cause warming alter the global climate?

Please answer my post in this thread:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p117724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Prove that!

right up until he called me a liar - which I think was the only way he could think of shielding himself, at that stage, from critically examining his beliefs, and that's a bit sad.

Kim

Where?

Not can't, won't. Such childishness is ... unattractive.

So you can't. And I suspect neither can your "experts".

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p118664" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alex, you have just called me a liar.
Please apologise.

Kim
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p118667" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you can answer what I've asked then do it. Where in our 14 page discussion have you refuted point by point what I've said?



If you have answered my questions about AGW in this thread, please repost them or give links to those pages in this thread where you have answered them. "Junk science", "bullshit" and "I trust the experts" is not an appropriate and convincing answer.


The reason I don't blindly trust AGW "experts" is because they themselves admitted their lack of certain scientific proof and trying to scare us.
See bottom of this post:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118364" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andre9999]

Alex, take your meds.

[Alex123]

Alex, take your meds.

Do you have any rational point-by-point refutation to what I've asked? Or will you attack me instead?


Am I saying something really wrong?

Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p117724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is the above right? If so (Kim or someone else), prove it.

[andre9999]

Do you have any rational point-by-point refutation to what I've asked? Or will you attack me instead?

Am I saying something really wrong?

No, I don't have a rational point-by-point blah blah blah. Your opinion about all of this is yours, and you are welcome to it. Doesn't bother me in the least. I said that because you are aggressive about your viewpoint, and seemingly obsessing over this "discussion".

I actually agree with some of your points, especially the one about needing to look at more than the last one hundred years. Yet somehow I don't feel the need to post the same kid-drawn graph over and over again. I bet you've posted that nearly two dozen times so far.

[Alex123]

Kim's site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

into atmosphere naturally goes 771 GT of CO2 (439+332) vs 29 GT CO2 which was emitted by humans .
compare 771 natural CO2 vs 29 human contribution of CO2.


29 GT of CO2 going into atmosphere vs 771 natural CO2 makes for ~3.76% addition (29/771 * 100 = 3.76%)
of a trace gas making 0.0387% of the atmosphere.

How much addition do we create for the atmosphere?

0.0376 * 0.039% = 0.0014664%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Total human CO2 emission causing imbalance of the atmosphere = 0.0014664%
I am sure that natural variations (in sun activity + position of the planet relative to the sun, etc) change atmosphere more than 0.0014664% (humans).

The nature accounts for 99.9986% (100% - 0.0014664% = 99.9985336%)


So, 99.99% of atmosphere is changed only by nature. Human CO2 production adds only 0.0014664% .

2010-1959= 51 years.
389.78-315.98 = 73.8 ppm increase over 51 years.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/ ... an_mlo.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If humans are responsible for 3.76% of CO2 going into the atmosphere, then:
73.8 x 0.0376 = 2.77488

In 51 years we have contributed 2.77488ppm of CO2 vs 71.02512 ppm contributed by nature .

Or 2.77488/51 = 0.05 ppm per year on average.

Humans have contributed 0.05 ppm of CO2 per year on average. (2.77488/51)

The rest was done by nature.

[andre9999]

Who are you posting that for? You're talking to yourself.

Meds.

[Alex123]

Who are you posting that for?

Anyone who is interested in knowing the truth.

Meds.

Please don't attack the person.
If you can, refute the data.


How can humans cause climate change if we contribute only 0.0014664% to the atmosphere? The nature can easily outdo it in either way (up or down).


Even if humans have never appeared, the atmosphere would be 99.9986% the same.

[andre9999]

Even if humans have never appeared, the atmosphere would be 99.9986% the same.[/b]

I enjoy that you call your viewpoint "the truth", yet you honestly believe that you're able to determine the atmospheric impact of humanity to .0001% precision.

Bravo.

[Alex123]

Even if humans have never appeared, the atmosphere would be 99.9986% the same.[/b]

I enjoy that you call your viewpoint "the truth", yet you honestly believe that you're able to determine the atmospheric impact of humanity to .0001%.

Bravo.

Is my math in http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p118950" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; wrong? You are free to correct it and I'll gladly change the number.

In brief:

check:
How much CO2 we put into atmosphere vs how much nature puts. ~3.76%
How much of CO2 is in the atmosphere. 0.039%
How much CO2 humans add to the atmosphere.. 0.0014664%
How much natural atmospheric fluctuations vs human CO2 addition gives. 99.9985336% (100-0.0014664)

my sources were:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/ ... an_mlo.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andre9999]

Is my math in http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p118950" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; wrong? You are free to correct it and I'll gladly change the number.

You are hilariously arrogant to think that you or anyone else can be accurate in a calculation like that.

I hope the mods don't mind me proverbially poking you with a stick (they probably do). But despite my failure at Right Action this is fairly enjoyable watching you get worked up.

[Alex123]

All,

I like to think for myself, and sometimes enjoy to check the numbers rather than accept "opinion of the experts" (even of climate change skeptics).

I simply cannot understand how human contribution of 0.0014664% of CO2 to the atmosphere causes climate change.

If humans have contributed more than 50%, then I would agree. But variability withing natural cycle , and various astronomic events would easily erase all the human produced "additions".

Here is a simile:

Lets say two people put money in the common bank account. Each year Andrew puts in $10,000 while Bob puts 15 cents.

Who put in the real money, the one who put in 99.9986% of the money, or the one who put in 0.0014664% ?
Even without Bob, the bank account would be almost entirely up to Andrew, not Bob.

Andrew stands for nature.
Bob stands for humans.
Bank account stands for the atmosphere.
Inflation is natural noise & variability of internal/external conditions: Volcanic emissions, obliquity, eccentricity, solar activity, etc.

The yearly inflation would easily erase all contribution made by Bob.

[andre9999]

I can see that you're addressing me, but beyond the "Andre," greeting, I can't figure out why you're going on and on.

Do you understand that I am not interested in hearing your viewpoint? I am starting to think that you are just desperate that someone - anyone - listen to what you have to say. You've become nothing but a broken record.

[bodom]

The OP has requested that this thread be closed. It is long past due.