Visit our Popular Forums

Dauntlessny · 14-05-2016, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

I refer you back to the main question. Is reducing temps by 1/5th of a degree by 2100 at the cost of trillions a sound policy or evidence of a dangerous and delusional state of mind? You keep avoiding this fundamental question, and I don't blame you, since it does appear to be a delusion that troubles your mind.

I think I said the same thing in different words a year ago.

But then, who's counting.

Somehow,

better left unsaid. See you next year.

Christian Ho · 14-05-2016, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"I do disagree that humans have had any measurable impact on the climate"

That must be a joke I am reading there, tell me it is!!!!

After it was a big red fireball, this planet took millions of years to cover up all this "evil" stuff we know as fossil today, in order to create an atmosphere being possible to live in and in the last 150 years (apr.) humans have nothing better to do, than drill holes into this planet and bring this stuff back up to the surface!!! And somebody is really trying to explain me , that this doesn't have any effects??????????

Long live the combustion engine...it will make us survive!!!!... and plastic aswell!!!!

All the best to everybody, your Christian Ho

mr_f · 14-05-2016, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

I refer you back to the main question. Is reducing temps by 1/5th of a degree by 2100 at the cost of trillions a sound policy or evidence of a dangerous and delusional state of mind? You keep avoiding this fundamental question, and I don't blame you, since it does appear to be a delusion that troubles your mind.

Ignoring the odd insults, I am still curious about your claim. Do you really believe the Paris agreement will lead to a reduction in global temperatures? You are quite possibly the only person in existence that thinks the agreement will be that effective.

They were aiming to limit warming to 2ºC. There appears to be near universal agreement that the current commitments will not achieve that goal. (Perhaps limiting warming to 3ºC.)

Lake-Effect · 14-05-2016, 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

What is it about the word "measurable" you find confusing, or are the 12 molecules out of 400 a material contribution in your mind?

newhaul denies AGW, you apparently do too. No confusion.

Delfin · 14-05-2016, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_f

Still confused about how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to us?

Hint: your confusion stems from the same problem you had with sea level rise and with greenland's melting: is it best to calculate a total by including just one part, or all the parts?

Not confused at all. It is 3%, or 12 molecules per million in the atmosphere.

Hint: when you don't know what the facts are, don't make a fool of yourself by pretending you do.

And since you continue to (wisely) ignore the most important aspect of this debate, if the Paris Accord commitments are fully adhered to that 12 molecules per million will be reduced by .12 molecules per million. Yet oddly, you and other warmists are willing to see poor people die to achieve that epic reduction. But then that is the nature of delusion. Totally irrational, generally.

Lake-Effect · 14-05-2016, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

... if the Paris Accord commitments are fully adhered to that 12 molecules per million will be reduced by .12 molecules per million. Yet oddly, you and other warmists are willing to see poor people die to achieve that epic reduction. But then that is the nature of delusion. Totally irrational, generally.

Let's help you help yourself: if we make no changes to our current pattern of fossil fuel use, then by how much will the CO2 in the atmosphere increase by 2100? What will be the effect of that increase, in 2100 and beyond?

Reefmagnet · 14-05-2016, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Let's help you help yourself: if we make no changes to our current pattern of fossil fuel use, then by how much will the CO2 in the atmosphere increase by 2100? What will be the effect of that increase, in 2100 and beyond?

Lake-Effect proposed reality:

Meanwhile, in the real world:

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Christian Ho · 14-05-2016, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Lake-Effect proposed reality:

Meanwhile, in the real world:

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The answer is here and as easy as this......

Lake-Effect · 14-05-2016, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Lake-Effect proposed reality:

Meanwhile, in the real world:

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I've proposed no such thing. I haven't myself stated a proposal. It would be enough for me to see people start working with the facts, instead of fighting against them.

Though I will say that if you think 7 lanes of mostly single-occupant vehicles crawling along is some kind of utopia, your lack of concern is understandable.

Reefmagnet · 14-05-2016, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Ho

The answer is here and as easy as this......

Actually, less is more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've proposed no such thing. I haven't myself stated a proposal. It would be enough for me to see people start working with the facts, instead of fighting against them.

Though I will say that if you think 7 lanes of mostly single-occupant vehicles crawling along is some kind of utopia, your lack of concern is understandable.

Where exactly did I say Utopia? You warmist guys are big on ice melts and co2 molecules but fall well short on practical solutions.

Lake-Effect · 14-05-2016, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You warmist guys are big on ice melts and co2 molecules but fall well short on practical solutions.

We can't begin to talk solutions with people who won't acknowledge the problem.

Reefmagnet · 14-05-2016, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We can't begin to talk solutions with people who won't acknowledge the problem.

Why? is 97% not enough acknowledgement?

mr_f · 14-05-2016, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

Not confused at all. It is 3%, or 12 molecules per million in the atmosphere.

Hint: when you don't know what the facts are, don't make a fool of yourself by pretending you do.

And since you continue to (wisely) ignore the most important aspect of this debate, if the Paris Accord commitments are fully adhered to that 12 molecules per million will be reduced by .12 molecules per million. Yet oddly, you and other warmists are willing to see poor people die to achieve that epic reduction. But then that is the nature of delusion. Totally irrational, generally.

So, you are still confused....

You can keep repeating this, but it doesn't make it true. I have explained your mistake in depth multiple times, but you never responded. Here is a condensed version (using the old values from the table you posted earlier. human emissions have increased since then, but this is fine to illustrate)

Consider this simple equation:

Increase in atmospheric CO2 = human contribution + natural contribution

Now let's fill in the numbers from the IPCC table you posted:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing at a rate of around 10 Gt CO2 per year.

Humans were emitting around 20 Gt CO2 per year.

So put those numbers into our equation to determine the natural contribution:

10 Gt CO2/yr = 20 Gt CO2/yr + natural contribution

Solve for the natural contribution to the increase. Need help? The natural contribution to the increase is around -10 Gt CO2 per year. (It is negative.)

Now calculate what percentage of the increase is caused by humans. I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.

But hint: it is not 3%.