Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide

  1. #1
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    32,708

    Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide

    Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide


    Except now he’s done it. In a CNBC interview, the host asked, “Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?” Pruitt answered: “No, I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

    This was met with howls of outrage and derision at such an assault on established science. But it might not surprise you to hear—because this is becoming something of a theme these days—that Pruitt is absolutely right, and it’s the media commentators who don’t understand the scientific issues.

    [clip]


    The question is not whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The question is whether it is the “primary control knob for the climate.” The question is whether it is the greenhouse gas, the one factor that dominates all other factors.

    There is good reason for skepticism. For one thing, just on the “basic science,” Pruitt is absolutely correct. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but it is not the most powerful greenhouse gas, by a long shot. Water vapor is far more effective at trapping heat and releasing it back to the atmosphere, primarily because it absorbs a lot more radiation in the infrared spectrum, which is released as heat.

    That’s why all of the climate theories that project runaway global warming use water vapor to juice up the relatively small impact of carbon dioxide itself. They posit a “feedback loop” in which carbon dioxide increases temperatures, which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases temperatures even more. These models need a more powerful greenhouse gas to magnify the effect of carbon dioxide.
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    - Robert J. Hanlon.

    “There is a deeply anti-democratic undercurrent to much of the criticism of the new president, borne aloft by an assumption that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.”

    And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues. - A West.

  2. #2
    "Larry Gude is right about CO2"

    I'd make that change, for one. For two, I'd have given a brief 2nd grade tutorial on photosynthesis. For three, I'd point out that 'greenhouses' consume CO2 and PRODUCE.....O2.

    Using the term greenhouses gases in this context is like arguing mothers milk produces poop. It misses the main point along with the details.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    "Larry Gude is right about CO2"

    I'd make that change, for one. For two, I'd have given a brief 2nd grade tutorial on photosynthesis. For three, I'd point out that 'greenhouses' consume CO2 and PRODUCE.....O2.

    Using the term greenhouses gases in this context is like arguing mothers milk produces poop. It misses the main point along with the details.
    Scientists say that, just like a greenhouse traps in heat so the benefit of the plants inside, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse trapping in heat that would be radiated out into space otherwise. Do you not agree with that comparison?
    "Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever." - Shane Falco

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by stgislander View Post
    Scientists say that, just like a greenhouse traps in heat so the benefit of the plants inside, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse trapping in heat that would be radiated out into space otherwise. Do you not agree with that comparison?
    Then scientists have never been in a greenhouse. Maybe they've been in a dome. Or a car in Phoenix in the summer with no windows? But they have not been in a greenhouse. Yes, a greenhouse can get hot but it is designed to bring plants to the optimum temperature, not just to make things hot. They have vents, heat systems, irrigation, fertilization and...yup, some have CO2 generators, ie, machines used EXPRESSLY to INCREASE CO2 levels which does NOT ONE ####ing thing to raise temperature inside in and of the CO2 levels rising.

    it's a piss poor analogy. They should call it the dome effect but some smart ass liked 'greenhouse gases' which, AGAIN, greenhouses CONSUME CO2 and PRODUCE....O2.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  5. #5
    Cooling pads.

    Exhaust fans.

    Horizontal air flow fans

    Mist system.

    Evaporative cooling pads.

    Fog systems.

    Shade curtains.

    Black out curtains.

    On and on and on. Most thoughtless, ignorant analogy, ever.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  6. #6
    I bowl overhand itsbob's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Patuxent, Maryland, United States
    Posts
    40,921
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by stgislander View Post
    Scientists say that, just like a greenhouse traps in heat so the benefit of the plants inside, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse trapping in heat that would be radiated out into space otherwise. Do you not agree with that comparison?
    Which scientists exactly?? Bill Nye?
    Nero played the fiddle, Obama danced the Tango.

    Quote Originally Posted by BadGirl
    Bob is the bestest lookin and smartest man I've ever met.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by itsbob View Post
    Which scientists exactly?? Bill Nye?
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  8. #8
    We seem to be forgetting it is highly unlikely, now, that the climate is being controlled by anything on the planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    Okay, it's actually called a "chaotic solar system".

    Here's a breakdown:
    Quote Originally Posted by quote inside Hotair.com
    Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

    In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

    Attachment 117373
    But, comes from a University of WI-Madison study:

    The finding, published Feb. 23, 2017 in the journal Nature, is important because it provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the “chaotic solar system,” a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system. The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history.

    Geoscience Professor Stephen Meyers. © GIGI COHEN

    The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales.


    Interesting stuff. I guess I'll keep my pickup truck.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  9. #9
    If I may ...

    Does the moon rotate and stay in exact orbital position and the exact same distance from the earth every day, every year, every millennia? Can the same be said of the sun? Does the earth stay the in the exact orbit and distance from the sun every day, etc? Does the sun's output stay exactly the same? No they do not. Since there are an immense amount of variables daily from gravitational forces not just from our moon, but other planets and the sun, and extreme differences of sun output, is it any wonder that weather patterns change on a yearly, decade, and century basis? Is there the same exact amount of volcanic emissions thrust into the atmosphere every year? It has been postulated that over 95% of earths pollution, eg. greenhouse gasses, come from the earth itself. This_person is correct. Man is such an arrogant species to think it can alter earth's climate just by being on it.
    If the military wanted you to have a spouse, or family, they would have issued you one.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRoasted View Post
    If I may ...

    Does the moon rotate and stay in exact orbital position and the exact same distance from the earth every day, every year, every millennia? Can the same be said of the sun? Does the earth stay the in the exact orbit and distance from the sun every day, etc? Does the sun's output stay exactly the same? No they do not. Since there are an immense amount of variables daily from gravitational forces not just from our moon, but other planets and the sun, and extreme differences of sun output, is it any wonder that weather patterns change on a yearly, decade, and century basis? Is there the same exact amount of volcanic emissions thrust into the atmosphere every year? It has been postulated that over 95% of earths pollution, eg. greenhouse gasses, come from the earth itself. This_person is correct. Man is such an arrogant species to think it can alter earth's climate just by being on it.
    Don't forget, we populate far less than 14% of the earth's surface. Somewhere between 50 and 85% of the oxygen-generating plant life is in the oceans, so we could remove every single tree on earth and still have one hell of a lot of the oxygen we need (likely all of it, since the oceans would simply have more carbonic acid and therefore generate more oxygen).
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |