New study of CO2, H2O, global warming

[mdn2000]

When it talks like an idiot, it is an idiot. Sorry fellows, the real scientists have spoken.

Everywhere Old Crock posts he hijacks the thread, Old Crock has to prove he is stupid in every post and demands everyone acknowledge Old Crock's stupidity.

Old Crock, If you were any dumber you would be the Missing Link, that is why you post dumb links.

I don't agree with Old Rocks but at least he has some semblance of knowledge. Unlike you mdn2000! aren't you the fool who kept spamming the threads with nonsense about all CO2 being dry ice? if you were trying to be funny it was an epic fail because people just thought you were retarded.

And what have you contributed, you most likely have never considered that dry ice is cold, that dry is pure CO2.

Why is CO2 found where it is cold, in ice, is it possible the two are related, that ice got there when it was snowing a lot, you need a link to prove this, CO2 got in the snow falling to earth forming ice on the poles, seems if CO2 were something that liked to be hot not so much would be found in ice formed by snow.

So what is a post that thinks its responding to spam, when in fact, I present fact you refuse to bounce around inside your thick skull.

I know retarded people, its a handicap, a very sad disease, for the un-educated they use retarded as an ugly slur, ugly slur's come from plain old dumb, lazy people.

Dry ice is CO2, CO2 is never used in any form to keep things hot.

Hey, dont they use Argon gas in windows and not CO2, seems like if you wanted to keep your house warm you would want CO2 not Argon, even a little bit would make a huge difference and this would take it out of the air.

But they use Argon gas, never wondered why?

Dry Ice is CO2, why is it so cold, why? You dont freeze CO2 to make it cold, you do not magically take the hot out of CO2 to make it cold,

Dry Ice stays colder longer than Ice made of water, how come, is it because CO2 likes to be hot, seems if that was the case dry ice would not last so much longer than frozen water.

So, I say CO2 is dry ice, think about it, if you cant figure it out than you may not be that smart, if you cannot think of one reason I say Dry Ice is CO2, you aint that smart.

 

[mdn2000]

this conclusion relies on reductio ad absurdum and can't support scientific theory for that reason. it states a model which had non-condensing gases zeroed out (absurdum) resulted in cooling, hence CO2 is the root cause of global warming (non sequitur) and it has been established that the excesses of CO2 are anthropogenic. this argument does not recreate proposed causation such as it would have to to justify its conclusion.

not only is this a rehash of the same argument and the same methodology, but it continues to ignore more plausible causation in order to embrace what seems to only be supportable by modeling impossible scenarios.

rocks, while you feel that this is the work of 'real scientists' it seems like the work of lazy and biased scientists.

Don't really follow your logic. The following is usually how such a thing is presented.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentrations of these gases have been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, according to ice-core data.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Please, present your argument in proper logical form or be prepared to be ignored. Your presentation is just a mish-mash of impressive sounding words that wouldn't pass muster in Logic 101.

CO2 is collecting in the ice you say, thats terrible, wait a minute, you guys said all the ice melted so how can you use ice to say there is more CO2 today than yesterday.

How.

 

[mdn2000]

I see Old Rock and his side kick Westwall thanked a flame post. If Westwall was smart he would not thank a post which thus associates Westwall with Old Crock, he Westwall, I aint read none of your posts, save me some time and post something here so I can see if your as dumb as Old Crock.

Old Crock and his Westwall, sounds pretty scary to me.

 

[antagon]

this conclusion relies on reductio ad absurdum and can't support scientific theory for that reason. it states a model which had non-condensing gases zeroed out (absurdum) resulted in cooling, hence CO2 is the root cause of global warming (non sequitur) and it has been established that the excesses of CO2 are anthropogenic. this argument does not recreate proposed causation such as it would have to to justify its conclusion.

not only is this a rehash of the same argument and the same methodology, but it continues to ignore more plausible causation in order to embrace what seems to only be supportable by modeling impossible scenarios.

rocks, while you feel that this is the work of 'real scientists' it seems like the work of lazy and biased scientists.

Don't really follow your logic. The following is usually how such a thing is presented.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentrations of these gases have been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, according to ice-core data.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Please, present your argument in proper logical form or be prepared to be ignored. Your presentation is just a mish-mash of impressive sounding words that wouldn't pass muster in Logic 101.

read the article, konrad. what you have presented is not how the conclusion was derived. instead, it is just as i've contended. if you think a fuckin stretch is impressive sounding, i couldn't help you cope with my grade of dialectics. the bottom line is computer modelling out all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not realistic. it is an absurd argument. concluding that CO2 is responsible for global warming on that basis is a fuckin stretch. that's what this article has done. a proper experiment should show that a surplus of CO2 in the quantities recorded could produce climate change in the quantities recorded. in such a case, the only strethin would be the accuracy of the modeling, but it would be vastly more credible. the article's conclusion is hackery to me for the reasons i've pointed out, latin or french.

next, your 'proper logical form' can go to hell. i dont even know what that is. what i do know is that i've made an entire thread on my argument >>> Water Vapor and Global Warming

you participated in the debate right up until you'd argued something similar to the above, and i posed a counter-argument which you ignored. you are welcome to answer to it now either by critique of ways which my argument has breached your absurd 'proper logical form' or simply by not dodging argumentation and addressing it directly.

 

[antagon]

here it is for the avoidance of doubt:

from the NOAA's ESRL @ boulder, co.

this indicates a greater than 2% change. while you dismiss the significance of that -- the very theme of this thread -- this pattern more directly mimics the change in atmospheric temperature, coincides with el nino effects and constitutes a trend which acts more significantly on the greenhouse effect than carbon has the potential to, even in the higher concentrations which you propose. CO2 is marginally significant in the overall GHeffect, a fractional change in it may not explain the rise in the temperature of the atmosphere, particularly since a rise is indicated in a more -- the most -- significant contributor to greenhouse effect.

this chart:

courtesy of this blog illustrates the spectral efficiency of the compounds in question, lending an insight into the dominance of H2O in GHeffect. do you question the vast volumetric advantage of water over the other gases? volumetrically, a 2-3% increase in H2O is about as significant as your proposed 25-30% rise in CO2. this is before accounting for efficiency. considering that, it is H2O increases are substantially more significant. can you refute that?

No, I won't refute it. I'll propose that the 2-3% increase in H2O is a result of the 25-30% increase in CO2. What's your explanation for the increase in H2O?

i would think that's just marginally plausible, and would question if the factor spurring longer and more pervasive el nino effect was explored. does the atmosphere have the energy to heat ocean currents to the extent which the el nino proliferation has? i have doubts that the atmosphere could rise a couple degrees and illicit a 2* change in water temps. such an increase in water temps from other sources could undoubtedly lead to atmospheric temp gains, specifically because of the chemical capacity for liquid water to absorb energy more effectively than air, and because of the effect which water vapor has on the GHeffect.

i would look to the sun, to the effect of polar freezing on the planet's currents, ie will receding ice caps affect the capacity to dominate tropical currents, or will these tropical currents dominate the ocean as indicated by the el nino patterns we've seen the last 20 years or so?

i only argue that the plausibility of the dominant causation proposed is subordinate to other factors available for study. the very fact has impaired the resources available for such study.

how would you argue that CO2 is the predominant cause of greater water vapor in the atmosphere?

 

[antagon]

this conclusion relies on reductio ad absurdum and can't support scientific theory for that reason. it states a model which had non-condensing gases zeroed out (absurdum) resulted in cooling, hence CO2 is the root cause of global warming (non sequitur) and it has been established that the excesses of CO2 are anthropogenic. this argument does not recreate proposed causation such as it would have to to justify its conclusion.

not only is this a rehash of the same argument and the same methodology, but it continues to ignore more plausible causation in order to embrace what seems to only be supportable by modeling impossible scenarios.

rocks, while you feel that this is the work of 'real scientists' it seems like the work of lazy and biased scientists.

Don't really follow your logic. The following is usually how such a thing is presented.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentrations of these gases have been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, according to ice-core data.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Please, present your argument in proper logical form or be prepared to be ignored. Your presentation is just a mish-mash of impressive sounding words that wouldn't pass muster in Logic 101.

CO2 is collecting in the ice you say, thats terrible, wait a minute, you guys said all the ice melted so how can you use ice to say there is more CO2 today than yesterday.

How.

all the ice didn't melt, buddy. oil your hardware, man. at least know what you're talking about.

 

[mdn2000]

Don't really follow your logic. The following is usually how such a thing is presented.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentrations of these gases have been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, according to ice-core data.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Please, present your argument in proper logical form or be prepared to be ignored. Your presentation is just a mish-mash of impressive sounding words that wouldn't pass muster in Logic 101.

CO2 is collecting in the ice you say, thats terrible, wait a minute, you guys said all the ice melted so how can you use ice to say there is more CO2 today than yesterday.

How.

all the ice didn't melt, buddy. oil your hardware, man. at least know what you're talking about.

Oh, I should have nice links like yours,

Link or no link how do you measure the level of C02 when you people state the ice is disappearing, recently formed Ice is the first ice to go so, how are you measuring recent years of CO2 accumulation in ice.

Whats wrong, you cant find a link that explains this.

 

[antagon]

CO2 is collecting in the ice you say, thats terrible, wait a minute, you guys said all the ice melted so how can you use ice to say there is more CO2 today than yesterday.

How.

all the ice didn't melt, buddy. oil your hardware, man. at least know what you're talking about.

Oh, I should have nice links like yours,

Link or no link how do you measure the level of C02 when you people state the ice is disappearing, recently formed Ice is the first ice to go so, how are you measuring recent years of CO2 accumulation in ice.

Whats wrong, you cant find a link that explains this.

you could just measure the concentrations in the atmosphere with balloons, man. they've correlated CO2 deposited in ice and measured in the atmosphere so that they could presume the same relationship with those deeper measurements going back hundreds of years before atmospheric testing.

 

[westwall]

I see Old Rock and his side kick Westwall thanked a flame post. If Westwall was smart he would not thank a post which thus associates Westwall with Old Crock, he Westwall, I aint read none of your posts, save me some time and post something here so I can see if your as dumb as Old Crock.

Old Crock and his Westwall, sounds pretty scary to me.

I hate to tell you chum but olfruad and I are diametrically opposed. My thanks to saveliberty was not to support olfraud but rather to support saveliberty's contention that you bring nothing to the table.

You keep posting drivel about CO2 being dry ice and yet you completely ignore the phase state of CO2 which is dependant on temperature and pressure. You are perpetrating the exact same nonsense as olfraud does.

Take a science class then feel free to rejoin.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't be too hard on ol' MDN, he is good for a laugh on a daily basis.

 

[mdn2000]

Interesting. Science, a peer reviewed journal, is publishing non-science. NASA is funding lies. The AGU and American Institute of Physics are pawns for global economic interests that seek to destroy capitalism.

Nobody to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.

When it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, and looks like a duck.........it's a duck!

I brought nothing to the conversation, how about if its found in the cold, is used to make things cold and keep things cold, than its cold.

Or should I say something about ducks.

 

[IanC]

Whenever I see liquid nitrogen it is always boiling. I wonder if it would cook things because it is so hot.

lol

 

[mdn2000]

You folks can "cut and paste" all you want, that does not make either sides point, the validity of Old Rocks sources are equal to any opponents source.

That said, I see each side do the same thing, copy a story, nothing more. Search the net until you find something, what catches your attention, the headline, the headline confirms your belief and with a cursory glance you have your proof, an article, nothing more.

When the post is more, when the post contains technical analysis its not your work, its someone elses, and you post a mere fragment of what the person who made the study allows you to see.

I see articles presented as fact, the article links to a study, click the link and find the study to be a summary of a study that is coming in the future, no facts presented just a chain of links to headlines, nothing more.

The studies I have seen posted, the technical, science stuff, it pure theory, not proven, not disproved, simple theory, stuff done on computer models, programs they write and modify as they study, the model goes to far in one direction, no problem change a number or two here or there, try another formula, throw out certain facts, ignore peculiar characteristics, read the actual study, if it the study is done by reputable scientists or researchers, than they definitely state this in the summary of the report or study. Old Rock posted a study in these threads that states exactly what I just summarized.

Dry Ice is CO2, a simple post intended to make one think and ponder, put a block of dry ice in a beer cooler and it will stay cold for days, the CO2 is not under any pressure, it just likes to be cold, if you dont open that cooler, if no CO2 escapes, it will be cold a long time, try it.

You could melt the block of dry ice with a torch, try it, it melts, it disappears, changes to a gas, but does not retain the intense heat of the torch, not a bit, CO2 runs from the heat.

I dont need to link to someones theory or study, all that means nothing, literally nothing.

These people so deep in their books and numbers are as far removed from reality as politicians, which coincidently have a symbiotic relationship.

Links and Quotes of others has proven not a thing.

No matter, the solution they propose is more insane than the admitted theories, make more CO2 burning fossil fuel, to make green energy, to make electricity, fossil fuel directly to electricity produces more electricity without the CO2 created by a "middle process".

Direct copies are better than a copy of a copy.

Go ahead post another link, I will take it to its logical conclusion and I can pick out where the author will admit the idea is still a theory and not a fact.

The only fact presented is mine, dry ice is pure CO2, not under pressure, too cold to touch, just freezing cold.

 

[mdn2000]

Whenever I see liquid nitrogen it is always boiling. I wonder if it would cook things because it is so hot.

lol

Touch it and find out.

The atmosphere is around 80% nitrogen.

 

[BlindBoo]

Everywhere Old Crock posts he hijacks the thread, Old Crock has to prove he is stupid in every post and demands everyone acknowledge Old Crock's stupidity.

Old Crock, If you were any dumber you would be the Missing Link, that is why you post dumb links.

I don't agree with Old Rocks but at least he has some semblance of knowledge. Unlike you mdn2000! aren't you the fool who kept spamming the threads with nonsense about all CO2 being dry ice? if you were trying to be funny it was an epic fail because people just thought you were retarded.

And what have you contributed, you most likely have never considered that dry ice is cold, that dry is pure CO2.

Why is CO2 found where it is cold, in ice, is it possible the two are related, that ice got there when it was snowing a lot, you need a link to prove this, CO2 got in the snow falling to earth forming ice on the poles, seems if CO2 were something that liked to be hot not so much would be found in ice formed by snow.

So what is a post that thinks its responding to spam, when in fact, I present fact you refuse to bounce around inside your thick skull.

I know retarded people, its a handicap, a very sad disease, for the un-educated they use retarded as an ugly slur, ugly slur's come from plain old dumb, lazy people.

Dry ice is CO2, CO2 is never used in any form to keep things hot.

Hey, dont they use Argon gas in windows and not CO2, seems like if you wanted to keep your house warm you would want CO2 not Argon, even a little bit would make a huge difference and this would take it out of the air.

But they use Argon gas, never wondered why?

Dry Ice is CO2, why is it so cold, why? You dont freeze CO2 to make it cold, you do not magically take the hot out of CO2 to make it cold,

Dry Ice stays colder longer than Ice made of water, how come, is it because CO2 likes to be hot, seems if that was the case dry ice would not last so much longer than frozen water.

So, I say CO2 is dry ice, think about it, if you cant figure it out than you may not be that smart, if you cannot think of one reason I say Dry Ice is CO2, you aint that smart.

I must say. Hahahahahahahahahaha, this is the funniest post I've read in a long time. I do hope mdn is kidding. Just in case you're not let me help clear a few things up for you. Yes Dry Ice is CO2. Not all CO2 is Dry Ice. The atmospheric CO2 is not Dry Ice. Dry Iced is produced by freezing CO2. CO2 freezes at about -110 F. The CO2 they sample from ice cores are from tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice not the frozen form of CO2 built up in the ice.

Why is it always cold where you find Dry Ice? Good question I guess. Perhaps it's because it is almost alway kept in some very cold freezer before being sold?

I do hope you were just having a bit of fun.

 

[mdn2000]

I don't agree with Old Rocks but at least he has some semblance of knowledge. Unlike you mdn2000! aren't you the fool who kept spamming the threads with nonsense about all CO2 being dry ice? if you were trying to be funny it was an epic fail because people just thought you were retarded.

And what have you contributed, you most likely have never considered that dry ice is cold, that dry is pure CO2.

Why is CO2 found where it is cold, in ice, is it possible the two are related, that ice got there when it was snowing a lot, you need a link to prove this, CO2 got in the snow falling to earth forming ice on the poles, seems if CO2 were something that liked to be hot not so much would be found in ice formed by snow.

So what is a post that thinks its responding to spam, when in fact, I present fact you refuse to bounce around inside your thick skull.

I know retarded people, its a handicap, a very sad disease, for the un-educated they use retarded as an ugly slur, ugly slur's come from plain old dumb, lazy people.

Dry ice is CO2, CO2 is never used in any form to keep things hot.

Hey, dont they use Argon gas in windows and not CO2, seems like if you wanted to keep your house warm you would want CO2 not Argon, even a little bit would make a huge difference and this would take it out of the air.

But they use Argon gas, never wondered why?

Dry Ice is CO2, why is it so cold, why? You dont freeze CO2 to make it cold, you do not magically take the hot out of CO2 to make it cold,

Dry Ice stays colder longer than Ice made of water, how come, is it because CO2 likes to be hot, seems if that was the case dry ice would not last so much longer than frozen water.

So, I say CO2 is dry ice, think about it, if you cant figure it out than you may not be that smart, if you cannot think of one reason I say Dry Ice is CO2, you aint that smart.

I must say. Hahahahahahahahahaha, this is the funniest post I've read in a long time. I do hope mdn is kidding. Just in case you're not let me help clear a few things up for you. Yes Dry Ice is CO2. Not all CO2 is Dry Ice. The atmospheric CO2 is not Dry Ice. Dry Iced is produced by freezing CO2. CO2 freezes at about -110 F. The CO2 they sample from ice cores are from tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice not the frozen form of CO2 built up in the ice.

Why is it always cold where you find Dry Ice? Good question I guess. Perhaps it's because it is almost alway kept in some very cold freezer before being sold?

Ifs thats funny this will be even funnier, CO2 is not froze to make dry ice. Look it up. If you dont know this simple fact you know even less of anything more complicated concerning CO2

 

[westwall]

You folks can "cut and paste" all you want, that does not make either sides point, the validity of Old Rocks sources are equal to any opponents source.

That said, I see each side do the same thing, copy a story, nothing more. Search the net until you find something, what catches your attention, the headline, the headline confirms your belief and with a cursory glance you have your proof, an article, nothing more.

When the post is more, when the post contains technical analysis its not your work, its someone elses, and you post a mere fragment of what the person who made the study allows you to see.

I see articles presented as fact, the article links to a study, click the link and find the study to be a summary of a study that is coming in the future, no facts presented just a chain of links to headlines, nothing more.

The studies I have seen posted, the technical, science stuff, it pure theory, not proven, not disproved, simple theory, stuff done on computer models, programs they write and modify as they study, the model goes to far in one direction, no problem change a number or two here or there, try another formula, throw out certain facts, ignore peculiar characteristics, read the actual study, if it the study is done by reputable scientists or researchers, than they definitely state this in the summary of the report or study. Old Rock posted a study in these threads that states exactly what I just summarized.

Dry Ice is CO2, a simple post intended to make one think and ponder, put a block of dry ice in a beer cooler and it will stay cold for days, the CO2 is not under any pressure, it just likes to be cold, if you dont open that cooler, if no CO2 escapes, it will be cold a long time, try it.

You could melt the block of dry ice with a torch, try it, it melts, it disappears, changes to a gas, but does not retain the intense heat of the torch, not a bit, CO2 runs from the heat.

I dont need to link to someones theory or study, all that means nothing, literally nothing.

These people so deep in their books and numbers are as far removed from reality as politicians, which coincidently have a symbiotic relationship.

Links and Quotes of others has proven not a thing.

No matter, the solution they propose is more insane than the admitted theories, make more CO2 burning fossil fuel, to make green energy, to make electricity, fossil fuel directly to electricity produces more electricity without the CO2 created by a "middle process".

Direct copies are better than a copy of a copy.

Go ahead post another link, I will take it to its logical conclusion and I can pick out where the author will admit the idea is still a theory and not a fact.

The only fact presented is mine, dry ice is pure CO2, not under pressure, too cold to touch, just freezing cold.

Riddle me this batman. How do you obtain dry ice? Do you go out and collect it from the atmosphere? Do you leap out into space and collect it from Titan and bring it back to Earth in your teleport machine? Or perhaps do you purchase it from a store? And how does that store obtain it? I see, the store buys it from a factory. And how does the factory get it?

Look it up then get back to us when you have learned something. See, I didn't provide you a link so you can find it for yourself.

 

[IanC]

My son found out that hard way that CO2 will sublimate even if you stop the gas from escaping when his stainless steel thermos filled with CO2 pellets exploded in the middle of his chem class. The impromtu show-and-tell experiment was not appreciated by the teacher.

 

[westwall]

Whenever I see liquid nitrogen it is always boiling. I wonder if it would cook things because it is so hot.

lol

Touch it and find out.

The atmosphere is around 80% nitrogen.

Oh, but according to you it should be solid and very very cold. What gives?

 

[antagon]

i'm not sure what mdm2000's point is, but it could be helpful that he know dry ice doesn't quite occur naturally on earth because of the warmth of the coldest conditions on the planet. the coldest average monthly temps on the planet are around -65*C, and CO2 starts to freeze around -80*C.