New research on Arctic methane

[Chris]

The fact that you've provided nothing here does not amaze me.

If you believe that the climate is analogous to electron transport in the cell, then you do not understand one or both of those subjects.

If you do not understand the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, then you don't understand this subject.

 

[Steerpike]

If you do not understand the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, then you don't understand this subject.

This shows a lack of comprehension of my posts. Maybe you should go back and actually read them, and then you will perhaps be able to respond to something I've actually written.

 

[Chris]

This shows a lack of comprehension of my posts. Maybe you should go back and actually read them, and then you will perhaps be able to respond to something I've actually written.

I read your posts.

Old Rocks made a general analogy, you tried to take it as a specific one.

 

[Steerpike]

I read your posts.

Old Rocks made a general analogy, you tried to take it as a specific one.

You didn't read them well, and here's the proof:

Your comment to me was regarding understanding the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. Please link or quote me from a single post of mine that says anything one way or another about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You won't find one. Which you would have already known if you'd read my posts with any degree of comprehension. In which case you wouldn't have made your post. You simply had a knee-jerk need to insult me, for some reason, and you posted the first thing that came to mind.

I don't mind discussing it, but if you persist in bringing a plastic spoon to a gun fight it's going to get boring.

 

[Chris]

You didn't read them well, and here's the proof:

Your comment to me was regarding understanding the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. Please link or quote me from a single post of mine that says anything one way or another about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You won't find one. Which you would have already known if you'd read my posts with any degree of comprehension. In which case you wouldn't have made your post. You simply had a knee-jerk need to insult me, for some reason, and you posted the first thing that came to mind.

I don't mind discussing it, but if you persist in bringing a plastic spoon to a gun fight it's going to get boring.

I did not insult you, but clarified what happened.

OR made a general analogy, and you tried to say it was specific.

 

[Steerpike]

I did not insult you, but clarified what happened.

OR made a general analogy, and you tried to say it was specific.

Here is your precise post, in case you've forgotten it:

If you do not understand the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, then you don't understand this subject.

Now please relate that specifically to anything I've said.

 

[garyd]

Buy all appearances we did not start it, rocks the worst we are doing is delaying the onset of a major ice age One of which is over due by a goodly amount.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is your precise post, in case you've forgotten it:

If you do not understand the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, then you don't understand this subject.

Now please relate that specifically to anything I've said.

Oh well, spin it any way you like. The analogy was in response to a statement that a such a small amount of CO2, like 385 ppm, could not possibly harm us. The analogy to potasium cyanide is valid in that context. In either case, the very small amount does have a very adverse effect on the whole system.

Now, since you attacked my anology, would you care to explain to me your understanding of the role of CO2 and other GHGs in our atmosphere?

 

[Old Rocks]

Buy all appearances we did not start it, rocks the worst we are doing is delaying the onset of a major ice age One of which is over due by a goodly amount.

Good lord, I truly wish you were correct in that statement. Look, here is a book by a Paleo post grad. Post grad at the time the book was written, now a Phd.

Methane catastrophe

It is online and free. Just the description of the proxies used for determining past climates is worth the reading.

 

[Steerpike]

Oh well, spin it any way you like. The analogy was in response to a statement that a such a small amount of CO2, like 385 ppm, could not possibly harm us. The analogy to potasium cyanide is valid in that context. In either case, the very small amount does have a very adverse effect on the whole system.

It is not a good analogy because the two things being compared by the analogy are not similar and do not behave in similar ways.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is not a good analogy because the two things being compared by the analogy are not similar and do not behave in similar ways.

Ok, the an adrupt climate change does not cause the climate to croak. Just a whole lot of homo sapiens that are dependent on agriculture.

 

[Steerpike]

Ok, the an adrupt climate change does not cause the climate to croak. Just a whole lot of homo sapiens that are dependent on agriculture.

But that wasn't the question. The question was how such a small amount could be significant. This question can also be present by way of comparison with natural contributors to the greenhouse effect such as water vapor, natural CO2 sources, etc., and it can then be asked how the small amount contributed by human activity can matter.

The correct answer, or what approaches one I think, is that if human activity is having an effect, it is because there is essentially a homeostasis in play with respect to the natural contributors. In any system that is at homeostasis, a small change can make a difference. Further, if there is feedback in the system a small change can start to run away.

That's the proper answer, not a poor analogy to cyanide and the body's electron transport system.

 

[Old Rocks]

But that wasn't the question. The question was how such a small amount could be significant. This question can also be present by way of comparison with natural contributors to the greenhouse effect such as water vapor, natural CO2 sources, etc., and it can then be asked how the small amount contributed by human activity can matter.

The correct answer, or what approaches one I think, is that if human activity is having an effect, it is because there is essentially a homeostasis in play with respect to the natural contributors. In any system that is at homeostasis, a small change can make a difference. Further, if there is feedback in the system a small change can start to run away.

That's the proper answer, not a poor analogy to cyanide and the body's electron transport system.

Very well put And I mean that. However, are you sure that the original poster would understand what you said?

 

[Steerpike]

Very well put And I mean that. However, are you sure that the original poster would understand what you said?

I don't know. It helps to have at least some training in science to understand how homeostatic systems work.

 

[Chris]

But that wasn't the question. The question was how such a small amount could be significant. This question can also be present by way of comparison with natural contributors to the greenhouse effect such as water vapor, natural CO2 sources, etc., and it can then be asked how the small amount contributed by human activity can matter.

The correct answer, or what approaches one I think, is that if human activity is having an effect, it is because there is essentially a homeostasis in play with respect to the natural contributors. In any system that is at homeostasis, a small change can make a difference. Further, if there is feedback in the system a small change can start to run away.

That's the proper answer, not a poor analogy to cyanide and the body's electron transport system.

If that is what you meant, then you are correct, sir.

 

[del]

How long have you been so damned ignorant? Have you ever considered remedial measures for you depth of ignorance? The net is very easy to do research on. And peer reviewed research is the best way to do the research. For, even if the conclusions are incorrect, you can be reasonably sure that the evidence and methodology is correct.

brilliant. i'm sure there's a huge demand for wrong answers arrived at in the approved fashion. you're living proof.

 

[Old Rocks]

brilliant. i'm sure there's a huge demand for wrong answers arrived at in the approved fashion. you're living proof.

Stupid ass. If the evidence and methodology is correct, then the answer is there, just has to be found. That is how science is done, the correct answers often have been staring us in the face for years, we just fail to put them in the right logical framework. But the evidence and methodology have to be correct, or we are failing to work with reality.

 

[Steerpike]

Stupid ass. If the evidence and methodology is correct, then the answer is there, just has to be found. That is how science is done, the correct answers often have been staring us in the face for years, we just fail to put them in the right logical framework. But the evidence and methodology have to be correct, or we are failing to work with reality.

That's the value of the primary literature. Even if the conclusions are wrong, the results are usually accurate representations of what was found in the experiment. So the article is still of value to the scientific community. In many cases, the conclusions are simply open to interpretation. I've read plenty of primary literature papers where I thought the authors conclusions were a bit reaching, overstating the case, but where at the same time the methodology was sound, so the results were useful.

 

[del]

Stupid ass. If the evidence and methodology is correct, then the answer is there, just has to be found. That is how science is done, the correct answers often have been staring us in the face for years, we just fail to put them in the right logical framework. But the evidence and methodology have to be correct, or we are failing to work with reality.

i'm sorry. i should know better than to mock someone's religion.

my apologies.

 

[Steerpike]

i'm sorry. i should know better than to mock someone's religion.

my apologies.

This is an ignorant reply. If you aren't going to consider what's been said, why even participate in the thread?