Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

Muller did the facepalm thing when he looked at carbon dioxide, something we all exhale. The population of the planet has more than doubled in the past 60 years.

Are you capable of doing simple math? Why don't you compare the increase in technological carbon with contribution from biological carbon and tell us the result? Also tell us where carbon from respiration actually comes from?

Is there any argument too stupid for you to use?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let me lay out your idiocy. The net result of human respiration over a lifetime is to remove carbon from the atmosphere. All of the carbon breathed out comes from food consumed. Food comes from atmospheric carbon. But since most of us die with more carbon in our bodies than we are born with, our burial represents a net removal of carbon. You are a blooming idiot.

ABE:

marc9000 writes: Then they have got a whole lot more work to do.

It may not be possible to explain the science in a way that you can understand it. Your comments (here and previous) suggests that the the physical science taught in junior high school, if not earlier, did not really stick. If you are still asking, "How can there be global warming when it is cold outside" type questions, perhaps more effort should be spent on your children and grand children than on educating you.

Edited by NoNukes, : Make it more elementary for marc9000.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release

---

So now you are going to pretend that your comments referred to methane? Let's check that...

marc9000 writes: Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons.

So I take it we can all agree that what you actually wrote in your post was just ignorant. There is no need to distinguish between carbon dioxide from exhaling and carbon from any number of human activities because exhaling does not increase atmospheric carbon. Increase in carbon dioxide happen either by taking carbon that is not currently in the atmosphere and burning it, or by affecting mechanisms like photosynthesis that remove carbon dioxide.

IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT TO HUMANITY'S CURRENT METHANE RELEASE. There are several ways other than breathing, that humans produce carbon dioxide.

Methane is not carbon dioxide. Further, your quote is comparing all of humanity's methane release (which is also dominated by the technological component) to the dinosaurs digestive methane release, and not the tiny amount of methane that humans fart out.

Humans don't increase carbon dioxide levels simply by living and breathing. Period. You have no clue, marc9000. Absolutely none. You are incapable of doing the least bit of vetting of the ideas about global climate change that your brain manufactures.

ABE:

Would it be too hard to familiarize yourself with the actual arguments deniers make that actually require some thought to address?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I didn't specify which end was doing the exhaling! Seriously, it was you, earlier, who made the distinction between biological versus technological sources of carbon dioxide. If biological carbon dioxide is doing any sizable contribution to global warming...

You are not being honest. You said exhaling carbon dioxide. That means breathing and not farting. And has been explained to you, biological carbon dioxide generate by humans is not a factor and won't be unless we learn to ingest fossil fuel. Human beings actually remove carbon from the atmosphere over their lifetime unless we cremate their bodies at death. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

You see plants convert CO2 (from the atmosphere) and water to food, which is eaten by animals. We eat the plants and animals. When we generate energy from said food, we exhale CO2 back into the atmosphere. But some of that carbon gets converted into body mass, so we keep more CO2 than we take in. Get it?

But mere human existence does!

Well, no. That's the point.

But if you are conceding the point that human activity (other than breathing) raises CO2 levels, that would be a welcome acknowledgement. As long as those activities are either avoidable, or have substitutes, those activities can be considered for modification. Breathing, fortunately is not one of those issues.

Living, breathing

Wrong breathing is not an issue.

burning things to keep warm, driving even the tiniest compact cars

Yes, which is why reducing or finding substitutes for some of those things is something to be considered. There are alternative ways to keep warm and to power automobiles.

allowing rich global warming activist billionaires to fly jets

Surely, this is among one of the more idiotic reasons to ignore a problem.

Razd took one, and copy/pasted a whole bunch of rabbit trails to try to draw me into years worth of dances that the scientific community has come up with

I think that is what is called a rebuttal.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The Wikipedia link I referred to earlier claimed a close comparison to the several thousand (or several million) dinosaurs fart machines to 7 billion human fart machines.

I don't know if you simply lack understanding or if you are just throwing out stuff to see what sticks. The phrasing used in the wiki article was 'humanity's current methane release' which means not just methane from man's digestive system, said amount being insignificant, but also methane generated from biomass decomposition in land fills, during manufacturing, drilling, fracking, mining, mishandling from natural gas transit systems, etc. In short, methane from all man-made activity.

If you were actually serious about wanting to throw more of the blame on methane, then what changes is the human activities that we ought to be looking at and maybe doing something about. But both CO2 and methane are issues.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Idiotic? Questioning corruption, and uneven application of rules?

Has somebody told you that you cannot fly somewhere? What rules are you talking about? And you have not described any corruption.

And all of that nonsense is just blowing smoke if AGW is actually a problem. And the fact or non fact is a matter of science and not what some billionaire does or did on a plane.

I'm talking about uneven application of "solutions" to global warming. If one person uses jet transportation, which pollutes hundreds of times more than one automobile, why should one using an automobile be penalized

There aren't any rules about using automobiles or flying. When were you penalized for using an automobile.

If you can't imagine any corruption being involved in ANY government action to combat global warming, I can't help you.

I'm not concerned about your imagination. You claimed that billionaires flying on an airplane constituted some kind of corruption. I'm asking you to tell me about that.

But as I thought, you are doing nothing except imagining.

nonukes writes: There aren't any rules about using automobiles or flying. When were you penalized for using an automobile.

marc9000 writes: You've never heard of auto emissions testing?

Wow. Yes, I've heard of auto emissions testing. They are not relevant to anything we've been talking about.

You were supposed to be telling us how billionaires flying in a jet airplane was unfair compared to you being penalized for riding in a car. We were looking for something relevant to global climate change. The answer surely has nothing to do with automobile emission testing.

First of all, aircraft are subject to emission controls.

Secondly, auto emissions testing is about prevention of smog. I'm not aware of any link between emissions testing and global warming. Are you? We have emission testing in most counties of NC. The test is for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.

Is it possible to apply emission control of automobiles for carbon dioxide? No. That is inane. An ideal combustion of hydrocarbon fuel produces only carbon dioxide and water. It is impossible to prevent the production of carbon dioxide when you burn gas efficiently.

Once again, you are way off of the science. Your example is total paranoid crap.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I outlined it sufficiently. If one person using a jet for personal transportation isn't questioned as unnecessary pollution, then it doesn't make sense for ANY type of much smaller personal transportation to be questioned as pollution that must be addressed by the heavy hand of government.

You haven't outlined anything.

1) You are conflating pollution with AGW. I know you think both concerns are equal BS, but they aren't the same thing.
2) You are incorrect that jet plane emissions are not controlled. Planes that cannot meet emission control standards are grounded
3) Air plane flights aren't just for billionaires. I am flying to MN and back on Monday-Tuesday.

So what's left, marc9000?

Collectively, they [our cars and trucks] account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas.

There is no question that burning fuel contributes to such gasses. The problem for your nonsense hypothesis is that we do not, and cannot control the amount of CO2 coming out of a tail pipe using an emission test. Those tests do not monitor carbon dioxide. In fact the tests were intended to control smog.

And if it's not "burned efficiently"? As in a 10 year old car? Ban its use? Restrict its use?

Inefficient cars use more gas, and produce more carbon dioxide, but that gas is not controlled. Carbon monoxide is controlled, but it is also life threatening. But even cars with poor gas mileage need not emit large amounts of Carbon monoxide. And carbon monoxide is not a greenhouse gas.

You missed the point, marc9000. The goal of emission control can never be controlling carbon dioxide. We have to get carbon dioxide when we burn gas. On top of that, 10 year old cars generally have no problem passing emission controls. Up until late last year, I drove a twenty five year old car.

ANY human activity involving any type of fuel can be linked to global warming, ANYTHING.

Making the link from emission controls to corruption is something you have utterly failed to do. Yes there is a component of auto emissions (hydrocarbons) that contributes to global warming and is subject to emission controls. But the purpose for regulating that stuff is to prevent smog.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"moral justification for selfishness"

Nice quote, Theodoric.

Marc9000 calls the empowerment to pee in his neighbors cornflakes, "Freedom".

At this point your claims are empty. Can you not provide even one reference?

I'd like to discuss this with you, but right now I don't see the point. Throw us a bone.

The science is supposedly settled right? We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade carbon dioxide is the by far the biggest causal factor in the atmospheric warming since 1970? Case closed, debate over right? Do we know how much sunlight has been reflected into space prior to 1970 and from 1970 onward?

Slow down cowboy. I asked you to back up your claims with references.

Sometimes it is hard to find the same paper again if you haven't looked at it in awhile

Nobody required you to post before you were ready.

I am claiming that the energy reflected back into space by low level clouds is many magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide at today's concentration.

On its face, this claim is counter intuitive. Water vapor is yet another greenhouse gas. It is not clear that increasing water in the atmosphere would make the earth cooler. Let's note that a cloud blanket keeps heat out by reflection and in by the green house effect. It is the difference between incoming and outgoing energy that causes temperature to go up.

As an extreme example, Venus is completely covered by clouds, and yet the surface temperature is 'the temperature of molten lead'.

Not really according to me, but it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it, since there isn't any concrete way to distinguish between certain humans that cause it, (either by their production of products, or their consumption of products), and other humans who do nothing to cause it.

No, we cannot distinguish between the various man made sources by directly analyzing the atmosphere in bulk. But, yes we can quantify the various sources of green house cases. That is enough information to target policy at the actual causes. We don't need to target people who get their electricity from burning dirty coal. Instead we might replace coal burning planets with nuclear power or an alternative, which addresses the problem.

What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities.

Could be, but that possibility really does not seem to describe you personally. Very little of your response here seems like a difference in priorities.

And of course, "under water" is an intractable problem for human beings, many of whom live on coasts and none of whom have gills.

Well one man's drowning under water is new beach property for another man.