• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fixation on CO2 results in bad science again. Corral reefs.

Jack Hays said:
You don't accept the data linked in #13?
Click to expand...

I accept the data I see. What do you think I'm missing?

CO2 sourcing can be flat and still increase atmospheric CO2 levels. Equalization is not immediate. The earth system sinks roughly half the extra we put in, so it still accumulates to higher levels. All else equal, if we do maintain constant CO2 emissions, CO2 levels will still increase until it reaches a point equalization occurs again. This can still be several hundred years.

Before mankind started interrupting the set equalization of the carbon cycle, there were only minor variations in levels, except when we were warming or cooling during the ice ages, and interglacial periods. Here, the CO2 levels were controlled by ocean temperatures. Depending on who's paper you look at, the lag to equalization for these events were between 800 years to 1200 years. Primarily because it takes this long for the oceans to complete a circulation pattern.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I accept the data I see. What do you think I'm missing?

CO2 sourcing can be flat and still increase atmospheric CO2 levels. Equalization is not immediate. The earth system sinks roughly half the extra we put in, so it still accumulates to higher levels. All else equal, if we do maintain constant CO2 emissions, CO2 levels will still increase until it reaches a point equalization occurs again. This can still be several hundred years.

Before mankind started interrupting the set equalization of the carbon cycle, there were only minor variations in levels, except when we were warming or cooling during the ice ages, and interglacial periods. Here, the CO2 levels were controlled by ocean temperatures. Depending on who's paper you look at, the lag to equalization for these events were between 800 years to 1200 years. Primarily because it takes this long for the oceans to complete a circulation pattern.
Click to expand...

OK. I get your point.
 
Why Jack... Why?!?

Why did you try to revive this thread where Tim the plumber got his ass handed to him on a silver platter?

Why did you automatically reject Threegoofs very simple yet accurate analogy?

How come, with all the discussions of AGW you participate in, you did not realize how misleading Jo Nova is being here without having to be told?

Fact of the matter is that if you didn't realize that this was nothing but denialist propaganda then you have no ability to actually understand and debate the science of AGW.
 
Buzz! said:
Why Jack... Why?!?

Why did you try to revive this thread where Tim the plumber got his ass handed to him on a silver platter?

Why did you automatically reject Threegoofs very simple yet accurate analogy?

How come, with all the discussions of AGW you participate in, you did not realize how misleading Jo Nova is being here without having to be told?

Fact of the matter is that if you didn't realize that this was nothing but denialist propaganda then you have no ability to actually understand and debate the science of AGW.
Click to expand...

3G's "analogy" obscured the problem.
 
Jack Hays said:
3G's "analogy" obscured the problem.
Click to expand...

Maybe instead of whining about how you can't grasp simple analogies you could explain to us how it came to be that:

1) you got duped by Jo Nova

And

2) you seem perfectly willing to
Let her off the hook for her absolutely brain dead post you reflexively vomited onto this thread?
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe instead of whining about how you can't grasp simple analogies you could explain to us how it came to be that:

1) you got duped by Jo Nova

And

2) you seem perfectly willing to
Let her off the hook for her absolutely brain dead post you reflexively vomited onto this thread?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the only illogical claims were in your own #14 and #16. You won't find any such claim in JN's post or any of mine. You've been rope-a-doped.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
3G's "analogy" obscured the problem.
Click to expand...

Only if you don't understand the problem.

O.K.... does this mean that Jack Hays is one of those people who are completely unable to ever admit they were wrong even after admitting they were wrong?
 
Buzz! said:
Only if you don't understand the problem.

O.K.... does this mean that Jack Hays is one of those people who are completely unable to ever admit they were wrong even after admitting they were wrong?
Click to expand...

Please see #42, and then note that the only source of "wrong" assertions was 3G himself.
 
I don't think he was wrong. Your the one who pushed Jo Nova's misleading propaganda, defended it, and then finally admitted you understood why it was wrong after Lop explained it.

You were wrong and you can't even admit it.
 
Buzz! said:
I don't think he was wrong. Your the one who pushed Jo Nova's misleading propaganda, defended it, and then finally admitted you understood why it was wrong after Lop explained it.

You were wrong and you can't even admit it.
Click to expand...

Please cite the post wherein I made the claim against which 3G argued. For that matter, please show where Jo Nova made the claim he complained about. Finally, please show how my agreement with LoP was an "admission" of anything.
 
Buzz! said:
Only if you don't understand the problem.

O.K.... does this mean that Jack Hays is one of those people who are completely unable to ever admit they were wrong even after admitting they were wrong?
Click to expand...

That Jack never admits he's wrong is a long established precedent. Award winning, in fact.

But since he cuts and pasted and makes few definitive statements, it's easy for him to pretend what he posted wasn't what he meant.

Of course, Jo Nova isn't so lucky, and relies on dunces and wingnuts to follow her blog.
 
Threegoofs said:
That Jack never admits he's wrong is a long established precedent. Award winning, in fact.

But since he cuts and pasted and makes few definitive statements, it's easy for him to pretend what he posted wasn't what he meant.

Of course, Jo Nova isn't so lucky, and relies on dunces and wingnuts to follow her blog.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the only source of the error you cited was your own post. It doesn't appear in Jo Nova's post and it certainly didn't appear in mine. It was rope-a-dope all the way.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please cite the post wherein I made the claim against which 3G argued. For that matter, please show where Jo Nova made the claim he complained about. Finally, please show how my agreement with LoP was an "admission" of anything.
Click to expand...

How about the very first paragraph of Nova's cite you cut and pasted:

Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels. What does? — maybe ocean currents, phytoplankton, Australian deserts something else…
Click to expand...

And when you admitted LoP was right you admitted Nova was wrong.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the only source of the error you cited was your own post. It doesn't appear in Jo Nova's post and it certainly didn't appear in mine. It was rope-a-dope all the way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure.

You might want to untangle yourself from all those verbal ropes we see on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom