Climate Expert faces a roomful of 'Skeptics' 2/4

[fusedchromosome]

The implication that scientists are using temperature measurements without critically analyzing things like heat island effect is comical. Some media sources say they're not doing it right and want-to-be skeptics swallow it whole without the slightest hesitation.

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome And again the climate is changing. e.g. the sea level has dropped indicating global cooling.

Just because someone published something saying 97% agree, doesn't make it true.

[fusedchromosome]

Schneider to Rivlin: "I think you need to study this problem."

Rivlin: "I've studied it."

Schneider: "Obviously not well."

Ouch! Rivlin was so busy trying to throw science under the bus, he bent himself over for an intellectual spanking.

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome e.g. The IPCC published a lot of crap in the AR4..Doesn't mean it's true.

A third of the citations are from student thesis reports, Greenpeace, and the WWF. Case closed.

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome  Email

"Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions—

Distribution for Endorsements— Cont...

[oomblikkies]

Green plants not helped by CO2 - like what? All plants rely on photosynthesis.

[oomblikkies]

wow, wow and another wow in terms of the alkalinity of the oceans. I was under the impression that the sea gets acidic, meaning the pH changes from >7 to <7, but the video says the pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. So bloody what? - both values are still basic as hell and this reported drop in pH will have absolutely no consequence.

[MewCat100]

Except his analogy is inept. Nature can grow more plants, which is analogous to drilling more drain holes in the tube. Poor analogy.

[Researchrules]

@MewCat100 And you enter a scientific debate with a religious argument. The personification of plant life does not aid you in your scientific score.

[MewCat100]

@Researchrules Are you smoking crack? Where in my argument did I mention a thing about religion? How did I personify plant life? You are out of your damn mind.

[Researchrules]

@MewCat100 "Nature can grow more plants" / "Xenu can grow more thetans"

This is a personification, you assumed nature to be a being. That is called personification and it's part of a religious process.

[thesparitan]

@Researchrules Here watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI&feature=mf­u_in_order&list=UL

Enjoy.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan Independent measurement have shown that 2012 will be a solar maximum. Of course I had no time to audit the findings or the authority for such an undertaking, but you get the point. Debate with unaudited figures is sadly not a scientific debate. To imply otherwise would mean to throw myself into a no-gain political mosh-pit.That is why I insulted you, you read a summary of conclusions without stopping to evaluate the mechanisms involved in generating the said papers.

[thesparitan]

@Researchrules Ok. Lets try a different tactic. What evidence would you need to accept that global warming is happening and it is because of human activity?

BTW, I have looked at the data, I have given you rebuttals, and sent videos that clearly debunk what you have been saying(I used videos because of time and lack of space to write) I haven't just made claims without backing them up. I am not religious nor am I acting like one, but you keep calling everyone you disagree with religious.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan A list of surveys which ware done by an independent third-party, not involved with the production of the paper which certify the measurements made by the IPCC ware valid, an independent evaluation of the instruments involved in taking those measurements, the standards used in performing those measurements.

[thesparitan]

@Researchrules What about a koch brothers funded global warming study by a well know skeptic that shows that global warming is real? Would that count?  Do you understand the peer reviewed process in science? and we don't need the IPCC because it doesn't actually write peer reviewed papers, it collects them and averages out the data, thats all. If you have such a problem with IPCC than try NASA or every major university on planet earth for that matter. All shows the same thing. AGW is real.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan Audit is the only safeguard against fraud and error. Audit works for Wall Street, audit works for the IT sector. Why should not audit also work for the academic sector or forensics. OJ SIMPSON was freed because the forensic team failed to follow procedures. Audit does not enforce a theory or another, it is just a measure to ensure that theories are developed from a reliable data set, represented in a reliable manner.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan It is religious to personify a series of natural phenomenon in a scientific discourse. "Nature grows forests." is a personification and does not belong to a scientific debate.

[thesparitan]

@Researchrules You know what, I am fairly sure I am done with you now. The endless repeating of the same lines, the insults, the claims of me being religious which have no basis in fact and you support that claim by saying "nature grows forests" and that is personifying nature and therefore we are religious. You don't make any sense and you believe in the largest conspiracy on earth between evil scientist trying to fool the world with AGW. Fuck off please, you wasted my time.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan Can you even reply in a coherent matter. You seem to move from global warming to AGW without considering. I ask for an audited research paper and all I get an incoherent rambling. If you are so confident in numbers invest in Wall Street without reading the audit report, please. After all, the managers must know what is going on in their companies.

[MewCat100]

@Researchrules Your assumption is invalid. I was simply writing quickly and with limited space. My point was that plants and a bathtub are not an apt analogy. Whereas holes do not spring up in a bathtub in response to more water, more plants will appear in nature in response to available nutrients. That is the beauty of natural adaptation. My response had nothing to do with religion or personification of plants. Just to let your idiotic brain know, I am an atheist.

[fusedchromosome]

@MewCat100

"more plants will appear in nature in response to available nutrients."

Only if all other factors remain constant. If rising CO2 produces instability in the climate system, the resulting shift in rainfall patterns will cause increased plant growth in "some" areas but reduced plant growth in others. For example, trees and crops are dying all over Texas. The place is on it's way to becoming a desert, so an increase in CO2 doesn't appear to be helping much there.

[fusedchromosome]

I should have said "...the resulting shift in rainfall patterns /and temperatures/..."

In addition, the rapid decrease of pH levels in the oceans beyond what current species can handle is likely to have a profound impact which could take hundreds or even thousands of years to recover.

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome Everything you just said is straight propaganda. LMAO

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome There's a big difference in pushing AGW, and publishing information on climate change. Nasa is publishing info on climate change.

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome The IPCC is such an embarrassment to the scientific community. It should be dismantled completely. As it is only a propaganda site, and not backed by most scientist.

Having 75 out of 77 of their own scientist agree is another joke. Out of a thousand propaganda letters sent..Only 77 even responded, because they thought it was a joke.

The rest were smart enough to not even respond to such garbage.

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome Co2 has nothing to do with Texas having a drought. They've had plenty before, that were far worse.  Texas has only been having drought conditions for barely a year. Do a little research and you will see far worse conditions in the 50's as well as the 30's during the "dust bowl" There is no comparison, as well as no evidence to even suggest Co2 is a factor.

[fusedchromosome]

@MewCat100

"Except his analogy is inept."

It wasn't perfect (analogies rarely are) but it was far from inept. For the last 200 years, man-made CO2 has been accumulating in the atmosphere faster that the carbon cycle can remove it. If your assertion is true, why has atmospheric CO2 concentration increased ~40% in the last 200 years? I.e. the water level in the tub went up.

[MrOTLChamp]

@fusedchromosome I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. 

[MrOTLChamp]

The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. cont...

[MrOTLChamp]

They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names! "

[MrOTLChamp]

 LMAO Boy, that sure say's a lot about how they got the so-called consensus.

[thesparitan]

You are not going to convince someone with facts and logical argument, who got to their opinions without it. Someone that digs themselves in a hole with a shovel cannot then use a ladder to get out because they never started with one in the first place.

These people will continue to deny and deny and deny the obvious truth of the situation because of deeper, previously held beliefs. All the people that understand science and objectivity come to a conclusion have already accepted AGW as a fact

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan What obvious truth you are speaking of, moron? Any regression analysis tells you two possible scenarios (either A is the cause of B or B is the cause of A). You know d**k about scientific methodology. Correlations do not provide the cause and effect in a system.

[thesparitan]

@Researchrules Why would anyone talk to you when even before dialog is exchanged you launch a flurry of insults? Anyways, solar radiation has been accounted for and is well understood. Lab results are apart of modeling but past records are really the key to understanding any climate model and CO2 is one of the main forcers of climate and the other is solar. Solar radiation has remain constant, do you have data showing it hasn't?

And cosmic radiation has been factored as well.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan The specific heat of CO2 is just 0.844 kj/kg k, and the density is just 1.842 kg/m3. Compare that with H20, whose 1.93 ~ 2.26 kj/kg k and the density of 0.804 kg/m3. In a controlled environment CO2 is an inert gas as air has a density of 1.205 kj/kg k. Hardly a supergas. And despite the industrial landscape, CO2 is still 0.036% of the Earth's atmosphere.

[thesparitan]

@Researchrules BTW, I asked you for data that supports your claim that solar activity is the cause of the current heating trend. How is that religious preaching? Second, are you actually claiming that because CO2 is still only 0.0036% of the atmosphere that therefore its too small to have an effect? If you are I hope you can realize how stupid that is. Lastly, the heat capacity of water is greater, CO2 has a larger spectrum absorption and stays in the atmosphere longer and is dispersed more.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan CO2 has a much smaller specific heat than H2O. It also has a greater density. The physical characteristics of water vapor means water is a better thermal conductor than CO2.It also stays closer to ground level, due to its inherent specific gravity. Not the same can be said about water.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan As you know lab results also prove that growing temperatures encourage the metabolism of bacteria. Bacteria which decompose organic matter into energy, co2 and water. But no, they just focus on the CO2-climate causality and ignore the climate-CO2 causality. What a wonderful survey.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan I'm launching a flurry of insults because you are using preaching ( a religious approach) to scientific data.

[thesparitan]

@Researchrules No I am not, but I think this conversation is over, you are too repugnant to talk to.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan Lab experiments have proven that temperature drives CO2. Fermentation and decay best occur between 0 C and +50 C. Decay and fermentation result in the breaking of proteins and sugars to produce CO2, water and energy for the yeasts, fungi and bacteria.

[Researchrules]

@thesparitan Logic states that if y = a*x + b than it follows that x = y/a - b' or x = a' * y + b''. The retards which produce scientific papers to prove y = a*x + b ignore the fact that x = a'*y + b''. Solar radiation obviously is an independent variable, as are cosmic radiation and the magnetic field. Not the same can be said about CO2 where lab experiments are inconclusive.Water vapor has a larger specific heat than CO2.

[bannor99]

Aha, I see the red-haired guy is a WUWT subscriber!!

[thesparitan]

@bannor99 LOL

[sceptic10]

Do humans contribute to global climate? YES. How much? WE DO NOT KNOW? Is transition to non carbon based energies going to happen anyway without any plan? YES. Why do the Al Gore and other birocrats force their plan? BECAUSE OF MONEY. People wake up, do not pay for a problem that is fixing it self...

[mphello]

=WE DO NOT KNOW?=

Is that a question or a statement? A question would be "Do we know?" or "Do we not know?" Clearly, deniers cannot tell the difference between declarative vs interrogative statements. And why do fossil fuel execs and defenders and meat-eaters force their plans and force their pollution onto poor people? Because of selfish greed and money.

Wake up, people: meat is murder, and causes 20% of GHGs.

[meercatdotcom]

Can't believe that dimwith is a GP. Which part of "accumulation" can he not understand!

[toulouse666]

"Anti-acidic"?!?

Its called Alkaline, your not talking to first graders, condescending and overbearing ...

She didn't say that it doesn't have any effect, that it has a smaller effect that are being attributed in your precious "models"... which are merely an imperfect tool BTW, NOT a proof of anything.

Completely understood? Where is his scientific skepticism now?

[ghbondfish]

Older people will remember that at one time the scare was global cooling. Now it is global warming. Our kids will certainly be dealing with a global cooling scare. All this science is junk science driven by a political agenda. Always has been, always will be. Even if you had good science that the caps were going to melt and Florida would be under water, good luck getting the entire world to coordinate anything until the lives of the vast majority are impacted.

[OpethNation]

@ghbondfish Show evidence or STFU Troll.

[mphello]

@OpethNation Bravo!

Tons of proof for serious Anthropogenic Global warming (AGW), yet deniers refuse to accept that, but ZERO proof for wackjob conspiracies about environmentalists "getting rich" off green energy, but these lunatics believe that.

[bannor99]

@ghbondfish Older folks like myself who haven't lost their memory and do have an understanding of science recall that the scare of global cooling was linked to a nuclear winter scenario and was a speculation of the media, not any scientific consensus.

[bannor99]

@thesparitan I think you replied to me by mistake instead of to ghbondfish

[thesparitan]

@bannor99 Oops, thanks for the heads up.

[OpethNation]

@aerobique Excellent video. The information mixed with your editing made for an amazing viewing experience. 

[StunnedByStupidity]

Next well go to anther very very very stupid Australian to ask it what it picked up from corporate propaganda, it will also be so stunningly stupid that it is unable to check on the internet for a solution to its idiocy and will travel all the way to a TV studio to share its unenlightened mind with the world... Their stupidity is gona kill and displace BILLIONS yet they seem positively proud of their ignorance...

[cristop5]

The cattle farmer doesn't appear to know that the pH scale is logarithmic. So a drop from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1means a 26% increase in the concentration of H+ ions.

[bernzeppi]

This was like shooting fish in a barrel.... Only in this case the fish willingly entered the barrel. So the audience represents the dumbest of fish! Yes mantra repeaters think they are smart because they can pronounce the word 'logarithmic'... Too funny!

[ThirdRAILKink]

The asian girl behind that nurseryman is really, really hot.

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

The woman who butts in at 6:33 is a Cattle Farmer. Big surprise, eh? She's taking all the talking points that the meat industry have provided her with because the evidence suggests that animal farming is the single biggest contributor to climate change. Hit your favorite search engine for "Livestock's Long Shadow" (FAO) and "Livestock and Climate Change" (WordWatch). By denying climate change they can avoid taking responsibility for the harm they cause.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09

:-)

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 It is clear that several of them had no idea what they were talking about (the doctor for instance) - many of them had read blogs and were parroting what htey read there and when the climate expert said they were wrong and why they ignored him. Whose fault is that?

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09

Ships - nuclear powered

All these other things can be made chemically

Why should other nations want the US interfering int heir internal affairs any mor ethan we want them interfering in ours? paranoia.

S501 is the drug act what has that go tot do with food?

[Kiddolinfen09]

@drkstrong It's like the Health Care Bill including: sarting on January 1st in 2012, US federal law will require coin and bullion dealers to report to the Internal Revenue Service all gold and silver coin purchases and sales greater than $600.

They shove this shit into them... and pass them without reading them.

Nuclear powered ships... sounds dangerous... anyway, when the oil goes it'll take years and years to replace the fleet of cars and allsorts. So it'll necessitate a slow-down. Chill.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 We seem to be wondering through rantland rather than focusing on the point of video.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 You can make plastics out of coal just as well as youcan make it out of oil.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 Who says those are the solution - only one of those solutions are proposed in the IPCC 2007 WG3 report - carbon taxes (if you have a better idea then lets have it). Saying things like the rest of that is scaremongering of the first order.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 Bigger Sigh! Oil and gas might be running out in the next 20 - 40 years but coal has a long way to go perhaps 100 years or more. Then there are the tar shales that are economically & environmentally unviable currently. Plus the deep ocean methane hydride deposits that are plain dangerous to touch but that is not stopping some of these idiots from trying. The fossil fuel industry wont give up easily. The problem is our thinking is short term so this becomes somebody else's problem.

[aerobique]

‘Scepticism is not believing what someone tells you,

investigating all the information before coming to a conclusion.

Scepticism is a good thing. Global warming scepticism is not that.

It’s the complete opposite of that. It’s coming to a preconceived conclusion and cherry-picking the information that backs up your opinion.

Global warming scepticism isn’t scepticism at all.’

- John Cook of Skepticalscience

[sceptic10]

This is typical spin for idiots... A so called expert is put in a room with not so bright people and he is schooling them like a second grade teacher. Of course he does not have a diagram or a chart with him or any credible data.. Am so sick of this kind pf bullshit from the kitchen of the church....

[aerobique]

@sceptic10

climate .nasa. gov

is THAT "spin for idiots" too, the fact-based, concerning standpoint of every, repeat: EVERY reliable scientific body/institute on this planet, you ridiculously typical textbook-ideologue?

..its strange that most of you, umm, kinda obvious with you climate "sceptics" (pathological reality deniers) trolls, having numbers in their usernames.. hmm.. what could that mean.. lol.

You are not "sceptical" (science IS) -you guys are just angry morons. In best case.

[aerobique]

@sceptic10

"he is schooling them like a 2nd grade teacher.."

maybeeeeee cause they act and think like 2nd graders?? like you do (aww.. a fresh profile to spread your neurotic -believes-, is it that itchy? sad lil moron..)

"Of course he does not have a diagram or a chart with him or any credible data.. "

*facepalm*

you have obviously no clue who, nor what you are talking about at all. Funny weirdos you guys are..

[Meurglys33]

@sceptic10 "Am so sick of this kind pf bullshit"

This makes you sick yet you click on the videos and comments on them? That is indeed a pathologic behavior.

"A so called expert..."

Prime example of science vs lunatics. This "so called expert" is an expert by any definition. Check his credentials. YOUR experts would be... Watts and Monckton? Check their credentials. Facts are stubborn things, and when proven wrong you'll shut up here, move on, only to shout elsewhere. Good luck.

[MrOTLChamp]

@Meurglys33 Actually, the skeptics are more certified than your alarmist.

Richard Linzden, MIT, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, just to name a couple.

Who do you have? A train conductor and a politician, as well as a bunch of kids fresh out of college, greenpeace and wwf? Nice. Which made up a third of the citations in the AR4 report. How embarrassing.

[Meurglys33]

@MrOTLChamp "Actually, the skeptics are more certified than your alarmist."

Took you two months for that comeback?

"Richard Linzden, MIT, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, just to name a couple. Who do you have?"

NASA, Pentagon, NAS of several countries, IPCC, 97% of active climate scientists, and over fifty science bodies worldwide. Oh and btw, MIT too. It's dishonest of you to list them as skeptics considering their latest results.

Who do you have already? Oh yeah. Two guys.

[MrOTLChamp]

@Meurglys33 Two month's? I just saw it moron.

NASA is not pushing AGW. The IPCC is a joke run by idiots that put out the fraudulent AR4 report. The so-called 97% argument is pathetic, and completely unproven.  Maybe if you read the e-mails you would be enlightened on how the IPCC operates as well as how the "consensus was taken. So far, you still have nothing. Not a single person with as high credentials as just the two I named. And still no proof of Co2 causing any change in climate.

[MrOTLChamp]

@Meurglys33 The fact that you even mention the IPCC is embarrassing. Their credibility has been destroyed by an investigation in a book called "The Delinquent Teenager".

[Researchrules]

@aerobique Bullshit, your argument fails to provide evidence from itself. Your argument is "argument from authority" retard. Skepticism means that in any given correlation you can mathematically argue about the cause and effect.

In the given correlation the author claims y to be the dependent variable:

y = a*x + b

A skeptic can argue the opposite.

x = (y-b)/a

A regression analysis describes correlation between 2 variables, not the cause-effect.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 Climate science is doing no such thing. There are those who are trying to take advantage of the situation for political and/or commercial gain but that is what a capitalistic society is all about.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 You keep mixing up the science with the solution. The video is about the science. it is wrong to try to bash perfectly good science because you dont like the solutions to the problem which is what is happening now. Suggest better, more practical and effective solutions but dont impune the integrity of the science or scientists because you dont like th eproblem.

[Kiddolinfen09]

@drkstrong If you look back in Aerobique;s vids you'll find a Climate change Radical - the Inquisition alive and well - the kind of 'believer' who this particular Climate Scientist warns about - saying that scepticism and belief both inspire radicals and its best to avoid them.

This just means to me that the Science is not rigid enough in terms of its propositions - from 'this is a problem' to 'this is armageddon' is a huge leap.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 What inquisition? You can always find some idiot who will say something stupid especially taken out of context. During the Bush administration scientists were under huge political pressure to change their views. They did not despite - witch hunts about their work (Barton & Inhofe), attempts to gag them (NASA & NOAA), closing of climate departments (EPA), cancellation of climate missions & instruments (DSCOVR, NPOESS, GOES, etc), & budget cuts (NASA climate science budget halved)

[Kiddolinfen09]

@drkstrong Yes but someone comes out and says 'We need to kill babies and deindustrialize' and the Government is like, 'Yeah, this stuff is REAL!!!'

[aerobique]

@Kiddolinfen09

you are crazy and sadly just repeat what inhofe, limbaugh, AJ and other mentally retarded assholes usually cry out.

Do me a favor and read this greenpeace report:

bit.ly /dA7x6L

(pdf)

‘Doubt is our product,

since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of

establishing a controversy...’

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 While others come out and say "full sped ahead and damn the torpedoes" which is fine in a naval battle whent he torpedoes were not very accurate but when we are playing russian roulette with the planet that is a different matter.

His 19% point was not well explained. Lok at it this way - would you get on a plane if it were cheap but had a 10% chance of crashing? Well your are on a planet that has a 10% of crashing if we carry on as we are burning fossil fuels.

[mphello]

@drkstrong I know your comment is a year old, but keep up the great fight!

AGW-deniers have silenced environmentalists and scientists for too long!

[drkstrong]

@mphello Actually the scientists and environmentalists have been vocal about this, it is just they seem to control the media to the point where more than half the coverage is negative or supporting the deniers when they represent such a tiny fraction of the expert opinion. I guess money talks.

[thesparitan]

@drkstrong Love your channel, been a subber for a long time. Best news out there for the sun, keep up the good work.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 The difference between corn and trees is the nature of their photosynthesis. C3 plants like corn are helped by more CO2, whereas C4 plants like some trees are not.

He was wrong about corn in saying with more CO2 gives a larger yield but all you get a bigger plant & then only if you increase soil moisture too but the nutritional value is the same as it doesnt depend on CO2. So you have larger corn ears but they give no more nutrition. Soil moisture actually drops with higher Ts.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 The industrial revolution started over 200 years ago. We put out about 3% of the CO2 emissions but that is currently earlier it was less. Secondly the oceans absorb some of that why is why they are becoming more acidic.

The "miniscule" effect is 0.7C at the moment and will rise to something like about 1.5C even if we go cold turkey on fossil fuels because there is a lag between the addition o fmore GHG and a rise in Temp.

Forest analysis "crap" - dont understand that .

[cheyaura]

The bathtub analogy is wrong; an increase in the level in the bathtub would increase the static pressure head; subsequently the flow rate would increase from the drain. What is established is a different equilibrium level. You can test this sometimes with sinks simply by turning the tap on at different rates and observing the different equilibrium levels you can establish without overflowing. Very basic science for an "expert" to get wrong.

[drkstrong]

@cheyaura The pressure difference would be miniscule and so the flow rate would change minimally alos you are assuming that the water doe not press down and slightly reduce the leakage round the plug.

PS ever hear of an analogy?

[cheyaura]

@drkstrong The pressure difference would rise through accmulation till it became "appreciable" - Hence an equilibrium would be created at a new increased level. "Water pressing down" is static pressure head. Yes I have heard of an analogy, hence my comment "The bathtub analogy is wrong" in fact the analogy does more to support the homeostasis argument. Given that it was presented as such conclusive and patronising way I would expect it to be beyond reproach, clearly it is not.

[drkstrong]

@cheyaura 1 atmosphere of pressure is equal to 34 ft of water - work out the pressure difference that the extra few drips make - zip.

[cheyaura]

@drkstrong x You are suggesting the accumulation is negligble in this analogy..? As I said earlier the analogy actually favours the homeostasis argument. You are really adding further cause to the argument that the analogy is inappropriate. Again I refer you to the point of regardless how "negligible" you think the mechanism is that is the natural phenomena that would occur. Also if you wish to be pedant atmosphere is an SI unit, ft are not you should present your data consistently.

[drkstrong]

@cheyaura No dont twist my words. You apparently dont understand even the 1st principles.

Total pressure at the bottom of the bath = 1 atmosphere (=34 ft of water)

Say you fill the 3ft deep bath to a depth of 2 ft before equating the inflow & outflow rates (1 gal/min in and 1 gal/min out through a hole in the bottom of the bath.

If 1 gallon adds 0.1" to the depth of the water (say). You now add 3% to the inflow rate. How long will it take to add 1" to the water depth & to overflow?

[cheyaura]

@drkstrong Really well I seem to remember doing this example on my 1st year Fluid Dynamics exam of my Chemical Engineering degree, of which I got a first. The flowrate from the drain does not behave in a linear fashion.

[drkstrong]

@cheyaura Of course it doesnt but what is the answer?

[cheyaura]

@drkstrong Put rather simply it wouldn't overflow.. At a height of 2.12ft the drain volumetric flowrate would be 3% higher and equilibrium would be formed. In accordance with Torricelli’s Law. You would need to increase the inlet volumetric flowrate by 22.5% before the system you present would be in danger of overflowing.

Unless of course you mean to regulate the exit of the drain? Which would really be an analogy of man fudging the facts, which I agree is a great analogy.

[drkstrong]

@cheyaura This is equivalent to what the Earth is doing - we are adding CO2 to the air (extra inflow) & the oceans are consequently absorbing more CO2 as a result (outflow rate increasing). But it is not absorbing all of it. It is acting non linearly, Nonetheless the CO2 level in the atmosphere (bath) is increasing. It will eventually will reach a new equalibrium when input from human sources increases the partial pressure of CO2 to equal the ocean absorption. Of course, we'll be dead by then.

[cheyaura]

@drkstrong The Earth's capacity to absorb CO2 and convert it to Oxygen is not static as you say, just as the bath level rises; CO2 homeostasis takes time to reach equilibrium: in the engineering world we refer to this as lag. Our capacity to produce CO2 from fossil fuels is not infinite either. The solution is to stop mass-producing pointless crap, not global taxes. Our species is far more threatened by: War, biochemical pollution, disease, factory farming and greed than man-made CO2.

[drkstrong]

@cheyaura I agree on the last esentance except I would add CO2 to the list rather than exclude it.

[cheyaura]

@drkstrong If we tackle those issues, we also drastically reduce man-made CO2 because they are the fundamental causes of it. But I have no problem with your cause (to me it's like a doctor treating the symptoms though), I have a problem with the idea of seeing the solution as handing over tax money to the same sociopathic fascist scumbags that orchestrated, the great banker bailout robbery; that foster debt slavery, and war for profit. They are the problem not the solution.

[drkstrong]

@cheyaura Cap and trade leaves the moeny in the hands of the private sector - its a market solution. I think the tax idea is fairer If and only if the tax collected is earmarked for creating alternative energy - subsidizing solar panels on people's rooves, geothermal, building nuclear power stations, etc.

[cheyaura]

@drkstrong Also your proposed increase in height would relate to an increased volumetric flowrate from the drain of around 150-200% roughly calculated on the basis of an average domestic bath dimensions and drain size.

[drkstrong]

@Kiddolinfen09 First it is not 3% - tht is per year - overall we have increased CO2 by 30% from the highest value it has been at for th elast 1 million years.

Yes, the dinosaurs had much more CO2 - notice one thing: no mammals like us? Higher temperatures favor reptiles and insects. We and our civilization is has evolved at these temperatures not those of the Jurassic period.

Also the Sun was not as hot back then and the continents were in different places.