• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by bradschrag

  1. In what way? We have observations of increasing co2 through various methods. It's best to establish what that driver of increased concentrations is.
  2. Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?
  3. Atmosphere won't hold much water vapor without non condensing greenhouse gases since the saturation pressure is highly temperature dependent. Remove the non condensing ghg and h2o would condense, rain out, surface would freeze, increasing albedo, reducing the insolation.
  4. Red herring. We aren't taking about how the climate change before the industrial revolution. I've already covered the mechanisms that lead the planet in and out of ice ages. That mechanism is in the wrong sign (negative) to explain current changes and there is not record of changes happening as abruptly as they currently are. Go back and read what I told you about Milakovitch Cycles. Funny that you didn't think my reply was applicable then.
  5. There are plenty of scientists not funded by the government. So try again with your conspiracy, but see if you can make it slightly believable next time. Do you recall telling me that I must see myself as some sort of God, yet here you are determining who the good and bad people are. Interesting, to say the least. Get it?
  6. I find it very interesting. By that I mean hypocritical, but you demanded me to stop calling you that.
  7. A religion is a set of beliefs. Science is a set of observations. You have a religious beliefs that nature is currently changing the climate. You have no observations or mechanisms to validate your beliefs.
  8. Interesting that you equate discussing a phenomena that is validated by many independent branches of science to something completely kooky. Keep on reading, I guess.
  9. There's your conspiracies again. By the way, I think you've swapped the term scientist with corporation in your vocabulary. Enjoy your paranoia of scientists.
  10. I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked. And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwin
  11. True, a bit sloppy. The energy balance of any object has to do with how much it receives (in this case Earth receives energy from the sun) and how well it dissipates that heat (in this case Earth sheds heat to space). Greenhouse gases impede that lots of heat, causing the state to reach a equilibrium temperature with the heat source. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be a snowball, with possibly a bit of liquid water at the equator.
  12. Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.
  13. No, I really don't. Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.
  14. Old growth sequesters at a much lower rate than new growth trees. However, if comparing trees to something cyclic like crops, they inevitably don't sequester much since their carbon is released annually. Since methane breaks down into co2 eventually in the atmosphere it's actually more beneficial to burn it immediately. Methane is a much more potent ghg than co2. This is in no way advocating lighting cow farts on fire, however there are gas flare stacks used in various places and refineries.
  15. There's no sense in moving on unless there is agreement because if he stated that humans aren't the cause of increasing co2 then we would need to address that first. It's unsurprising that this logical process eludes you.
  16. This analogy really demonstrates either 1. Your lack of understanding the subject in the least bit or 2. That you are a completely dishonest broker in this conversation. Based on your tone, reliance on name calling, and complete refusal to answer a simple question that is very relevant to establish humans as the driver of the current climate, I'm going with #2.
  17. Not avoiding or dodging, it's about establishing a conversation based on understood and agreed upon points. You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415? There's no point in discussing things any further unless you can answer the question. After all, if you say they haven't, it's on you to offer a source of co2 that is causing levels to rise and let us know where fossil fuel emissions have gone. Or cry conspiracy that co2 levels aren't actually rising. So which is it? 1.Rising caused by humans 2.Rising
  18. It's not about being "worthy". If there's disagreement then we can focus on that point of disagreement to try to better understand the arguments involved in each side. Have humans driven concentrations from 285-~415?
  19. It's not a test. It's about whether or not there is agreement. Have human emissions caused atm co2 to rise from 280-~415ppm?