Do Republicans hate American values?

[bobevenson]

Even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences.

Please cite a reference for that statement.

[Obvious Leo]

Even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences.

Please cite a reference for that statement.

Any high school biology book will confirm this statement.

[bobevenson]

Even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences.

Please cite a reference for that statement.

Any high school biology book will confirm this statement.

Please, can you cite a specific authoritative reference or not?

[Obvious Leo]

This is common knowledge, Bob, but I'm not doing your homework for you. You can either believe me or call me a liar but I don't give a fuck one way or the other.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes. Your ignorance of this subject is breathtaking and your enthusiasm to regard global warming as some sort of conspiracy theory is alarming, to say the least. The earth's atmosphere is part of the earth's biosphere and outweighs the physical biomass by many orders of magnitude, which means that even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences. However I personally don't give a fuck whether you accept this as true or not.

I'm surprised at you, of all people, to lower yourself to these tactics.
I've not even implied that GW is any kind of conspiracy theory. You are reacting like any child that has had its unexamined assumptions challenged.
I accept and have confirmed there is such a thing as GW. Had you read more carefully with your eyes open and not like a religious nut you might have noticed that.
Get a fucking life.

[Obvious Leo]

Ice core sample demonstrate clearly that increased in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2; NOT the other way round.

This statement is so fucking stupid it needs no refutation so I'll take your advice and get a life instead of wasting any more of my time in this absurd argument.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Ice core sample demonstrate clearly that increased in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2; NOT the other way round.

This statement is so fucking stupid it needs no refutation so I'll take your advice and get a life instead of wasting any more of my time in this absurd argument.

There is a time lag in which increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2.
That's how the correlation exists.
Live with it.

The probably reason that CO2 follow warm periods is due to the increased greening of the planet in warm periods and the increase in Co2 cycling through the atmosphere due to more forest fires and rotting vegetation that is the inevitable result of more vegetation. It is also true that cold water is capable of retaining more dissolved CO2 than warm water.

[Obvious Leo]

Ice core sample demonstrate clearly that increased in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2; NOT the other way round.

This statement is so fucking stupid it needs no refutation so I'll take your advice and get a life instead of wasting any more of my time in this absurd argument.

There is an 800year time lag in which increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2.
That's how the correlation exists.
Live with it.

Bullshit. There is no known physics or atmospheric chemistry which supports this nonsense. What is claimed to be the origin of this mysterious increase in CO2?

[Hobbes' Choice]

This statement is so fucking stupid it needs no refutation so I'll take your advice and gt a life instead of wasting any more of my time in this absurd argument.

There is an 800year time lag in which increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2.
That's how the correlation exists.
Live with it.

Bullshit. There is no known physics or atmospheric chemistry which supports this nonsense. What is claimed to be the origin of this mysterious increase in CO2?

I seriously think you are loosing the plot. Maybe you should get some sleep.
This is an empirical fact.



The probably reason that CO2 follow warm periods is due to the increased greening of the planet in warm periods and the increase in Co2 cycling through the atmosphere due to more forest fires and rotting vegetation that is the inevitable result of more vegetation. It is also true that cold water is capable of retaining more dissolved CO2 than warm water.

Your problem is that you are assuming a DIRECT causal effect.
Sadly no physics or chemical theory can support tiny rises in CO2 being significant for GW.

[Obvious Leo]

When you sup with the devil be sure to bring a long spoon, Hobbes, because I've got you well fucked this time. How does this bizarre hypothesis account for the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by 50% in the past century.

[Obvious Leo]

Sadly no physics or chemical theory can support tiny rises in CO2 being significant for GW.

Actually the physics of this is quite simple.

[Hobbes' Choice]

When you sup with the devil be sure to bring a long spoon, Hobbes, because I've got you well fucked this time. How does this bizarre hypothesis account for the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by 50% in the past century.

CO2 levels are arguable. But 25% increase is agreed.

The atmospheric level has changed from 0.038% - 0,048% as I earlier stated.
Physics does not support such a small increase in CO2 giving rise to significant changes in temperature. An increase in a trace amount is still a trace amount. Unless you think CO2 is magical.

The primitive atmosphere is thought to have been mostly CO2 with no oxygen like Mars and Venus.
I'm puzzled, still where you get this mystical idea of "Equilibrium". Care to expand???? No - I thought not!

[Hobbes' Choice]

Oh look equilibrium....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_di ... ioxide.png

[Obvious Leo]

CO2 levels are arguable. But 25% increase is agreed.

No. AT LEAST 50% is generally agreed.

Physics does not support such a small increase in CO2 giving rise to significant changes in temperature.

Yes it does. Even smaller traces of methane increase has an even greater effect but methane is more reactive and thus dissipates more quickly.

The primitive atmosphere is thought to have been mostly CO2 with no oxygen like Mars and Venus.

No. Certainly there was no oxygen but the pre-biological atmosphere of earth was mostly methane, ammonia and water, possibly also some ethane. CO and CO2 levels were certainly higher than now because of vulcanism but in percentage terms this is still thought to have remained relatively low because these would have been continuously depleted by reacting with the volatile organics in the atmosphere.

I'm puzzled, still where you get this mystical idea of "Equilibrium".

I wasn't implying that that the atmosphere is maintained in a stable state. I was explaining that the atmospheric composition is determined by a large range of causal feedback mechanisms between it and the biosphere. What is not well understand by many lay persons is that the planetary atmosphere is an integral component of the biosphere itself and by mass ratio it is orders of magnitude the most important factor in driving the processes of evolution.

[Hobbes' Choice]

CO2 levels are arguable. But 25% increase is agreed.

No. AT LEAST 50% is generally agreed.

A trace plus 100% is still a trace.

Physics does not support such a small increase in CO2 giving rise to significant changes in temperature.

Yes it does. Even smaller traces of methane increase has an even greater effect but methane is more reactive and thus dissipates more quickly.

Oh not it doesn't; oh yes it does...

The primitive atmosphere is thought to have been mostly CO2 with no oxygen like Mars and Venus.

No. Certainly there was no oxygen but the pre-biological atmosphere of earth was mostly methane, ammonia and water, possibly also some ethane. CO and CO2 levels were certainly higher than now because of vulcanism but in percentage terms this is still thought to have remained relatively low because these would have been continuously depleted by reacting with the volatile organics in the atmosphere.

Cite!

I'm puzzled, still where you get this mystical idea of "Equilibrium".

I wasn't implying that that the atmosphere is maintained in a stable state.
Oh yes you were!
I was explaining that the atmospheric composition is determined by a large range of causal feedback mechanisms between it and the biosphere. What is not well understand by many lay persons is that the planetary atmosphere is an integral component of the biosphere itself and by mass ratio it is orders of magnitude the most important factor in driving the processes of evolution.

Blah blah