AGW Theory - Discussion

The pacific garbage patch disagrees

This thing?

Oh the (yawn) humanity.

Ahh this was cute to watch people who don't understand physics try to use Venus as an example.

Psst, Venus's runaway temperatures isn't due to CO2 concentrations at all. If that's all the atmosphere had then it wouldn't be anywhere near it's current temperature.

Sulfur dioxide is the real culprit. It's not a greenhouse gas, but it's presence in large quantities cause's rampant cloud formation such that it blocks out virtually all light, both up and down. The surface of Venus would be incredibly dark, a really deep twilight. The lower atmosphere is actually warmer then the planet surface as almost all light is absorbed before it hits the surface and thus never gets absorbed and re-emmited as IR radiation. The polar vortex's act like a giant turbo oven that circulates this ultra warm atmosphere across the planet in a way very similiar to our own, just at a much faster speed.

Venus is heated from the top down (technically from the lower middle down) and not from the bottom up. Normally it would be very cold since such little light actually reach's the middle, but the small amount that does make it never leaves so it builds up, a little bit at a time, over millions of years until you get this dim yet ultra hot ball of acidic hell. The atmosphere isn't even a true gas but instead exists as a super-critical fluid.

It's such a radically different model then our own that no direct comparisons can be made. Anyone attempting to use it as a "see CO2 is BAD!!!" just shows their own ignorance.

That's actually false.

The Ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and thermal energy is 10,000 that of the atmosphere. It was another one of those theory's that was thrown onto the stack of "CO2 IS BAD SEE" without someone knowing the chemistry behind it. The Ocean can not "acidify" as long as there are deposits of calcium carbonate. The PH balance of various spots in the world is changing because our climate is constantly changing, especially as we finish a solar maxim. The Ocean can lag several decades to a full century behind the atmosphere due to it's raw mass. Any significant changes now would of been in response to things happening in the late 19th and early 20th century, not a few decades ago.

And please get your orders of magnitude strait. The Ocean is working on two to three order of magnitudes larger then the atmosphere. Any condition that would of had a significant impact on the Ocean in our perception of time would of been so disruptive that it would of caused a mass extinction event.

The real one, not the stupid facebook chain letter.

According to one scientist,

The pacific garbage patch disagrees

At least Nausi acknowledged that CO2 plays a role even though he's seriously underplaying it. You're just completely ignoring it.

Given the total volume of water they're talking about, that's still impressive. At the very least, it's a clear indication of how careless we can be with our waste even if the ecological effects are not yet apparent.

According to one scientist? You'd so take the word of a single anonymous "scientist" on anything that contradicted your position.

So despite the lack of thorough research on the topic, you've already dismissed it as a scam. Sounds about right.

.... Do you purposely keep those straws just barely out of reach?

Oh please. If ANYONE quoted "some scientist" the way you just did, you'd be all over them, don't even pretend you wouldn't.

No, that would be you. You are the only one who would have made a big deal about it.

Case in point.

BTW, you have been very aggressive lately. Are you finally showing your colors, or are you trying to nuke the P&R section?

Seriously, where is he getting this information from?

I'm one of the people working to keep it around.

But aren't you saying most of your time on the site is in this trash?

Your actions state otherwise. I mean, your newfounded aggression started roughly around the same time Rooks posted his ultimatum.

Whatever you say, buddy. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Next we talk about breeding people to be shorter, something Liao says could reduce our carbon footprint. Smaller people require less energy and use fewer resources, Liao argues. But selecting for height genetically would be a nightmare, according to the most recent paper that Maxmen found there are 697 genes involved in height. Since there’s not a good way to select for height genetically, another method Liao talks about in his paper is using treatments that cause babies to be born light — to have a low “birth weight.” But that comes with a set of very real dangers to the baby, and few mothers would opt to take that risk. Not to mention set their kid up for society’s bias against people (particularly men) who are shorter.

Yeah that's always been a favorite of mine "no dumping waste in the ocean, we'll ruin it"

The ocean is enormous, it's pretty tough to realize the full scale of it all. Our contribution to it is pretty minuscule, just like the co2 we pump into the atmosphere.

Are you the antichrist?

but no I am not the antichrist.