For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Please cite a reference for that statement.Obvious Leo wrote:Even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences.
Any high school biology book will confirm this statement.bobevenson wrote:Please cite a reference for that statement.Obvious Leo wrote:Even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences.
Please, can you cite a specific authoritative reference or not?Obvious Leo wrote:Any high school biology book will confirm this statement.bobevenson wrote:Please cite a reference for that statement.Obvious Leo wrote:Even slight variations in the composition of the atmosphere will have significant biological consequences.
I'm surprised at you, of all people, to lower yourself to these tactics.Obvious Leo wrote: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.
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 wrote:Ice core sample demonstrate clearly that increased in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2; NOT the other way round.
There is a time lag in which increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2.Obvious Leo wrote: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 wrote:Ice core sample demonstrate clearly that increased in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2; NOT the other way round.
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 wrote:There is an 800year time lag in which increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2.Obvious Leo wrote: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 wrote:Ice core sample demonstrate clearly that increased in temperature CAUSE increases in CO2; NOT the other way round.
That's how the correlation exists.
Live with it.
I seriously think you are loosing the plot. Maybe you should get some sleep.Obvious Leo wrote: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 wrote:There is an 800year time lag in which increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2.Obvious Leo wrote: 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.
That's how the correlation exists.
Live with it.
Actually the physics of this is quite simple.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Sadly no physics or chemical theory can support tiny rises in CO2 being significant for GW.
CO2 levels are arguable. But 25% increase is agreed.Obvious Leo wrote: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.
No. AT LEAST 50% is generally agreed.Hobbes' Choice wrote: CO2 levels are arguable. But 25% increase is agreed.
Yes it does. Even smaller traces of methane increase has an even greater effect but methane is more reactive and thus dissipates more quickly.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Physics does not support such a small increase in CO2 giving rise to significant changes in temperature.
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.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The primitive atmosphere is thought to have been mostly CO2 with no oxygen like Mars and Venus.
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 wrote:I'm puzzled, still where you get this mystical idea of "Equilibrium".
Obvious Leo wrote:No. AT LEAST 50% is generally agreed.Hobbes' Choice wrote: CO2 levels are arguable. But 25% increase is agreed.
A trace plus 100% is still a trace.
Yes it does. Even smaller traces of methane increase has an even greater effect but methane is more reactive and thus dissipates more quickly.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Physics does not support such a small increase in CO2 giving rise to significant changes in temperature.
Oh not it doesn't; oh yes it does...
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.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The primitive atmosphere is thought to have been mostly CO2 with no oxygen like Mars and Venus.
Cite!
I wasn't implying that that the atmosphere is maintained in a stable state.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm puzzled, still where you get this mystical idea of "Equilibrium".
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.
