ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

a reply to: Phage

I wish i knew how to multi-quote so I'll just asterik each point

*flipping a coin is a bad analogy because it involves probability

*We do not experience 100% radiative force currently. It can be based at 100% starting at a given point, but not overall.

*We know that CO2 acts in many ways, depending on the altitude and concentration of the CO2, and mixes of other gases

*Using an overcast night compared to a clear night is another bad example, that isn't CO2 retaining the heat

Cloud effect

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: libertytoall

It's not incorrect.

Yes it is. The Caribbean owes its rainfall patterns to its climate regime, just as the Pacific Northwest does. Just as the Sahara does.
Global warming will alter those regimes.

Jesus phage.. en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

That's the jet stream

No. The jet stream does not affect climate (or weather), it is created by weather.

Contrary to popular belief, the jet stream does not "cause" weather conditions of a certain type to occur. Its existence is instead the result of certain weather conditions (a large temperature contrast between two air masses).

www.weatherquestions.com...

I'd prefer to call it a cause and effect personally. Without humans there still is a jet stream.

a reply to: Vector99

*flipping a coin is a bad analogy because it involves probability

So does the direction in which a CO2 molecule re-radiates infrared radiation.

*We do not experience 100% radiative force currently

Nor will we. Ever.

*We know that CO2 acts in many ways, depending on the altitude and concentration of the CO2, and mixes of other gases

No. It absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in the same way, no matter what.

*Using an overcast night compared to a clear night is another bad example, that isn't CO2 retaining the heat

It's a good example, with the caveat in included.

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: libertytoall

That's the jet stream

Exactly so not all rules are absolute when it comes to the environment. If there was no jetstream in the pacific northwest, it would not experience the same rainfall and warm temps. But as for the general way the environment works it does not support the doom and gloom of the runaway warming nor the blame on humans for ruining the environment.

That's me agreeing with you lol. The jet stream is fairly constant, and so is its particulate makeup.

a reply to: Phage

Yes it matters who flips the coin. Every variable matters in that scenario as it will decide whether the coin is found heads or tails.

a reply to: Phage

Surely the velocity of spin and height combined would factor in. If the height remained constant, but rate of spin could be controlled, one could differ the odds from pure chance (50/50).

This reminds me of a conversation a decade ago between two friends, one arguing that if a coin flip had landed tails 10 times in a row, it was more likely to hit heads the next spin. The other said each flip was 50/50. I see both points. They are both true, but for different reasons. A coin flipped 11 times will improbably reach tails 11 times in a row, but it will also (all things remaining equal) always have a 50/50 chance. Each roll being unaffected by the prior results.

This doesn't apply when one takes other factors into consideration. You seem to want to dismiss these other factors to keep to some other point.

a reply to: libertytoall

Jesus phage.. en.wikipedia.org...

Your source:

As the earth warms, the rain belt is projected to move north of the current position.[7]

What I said:

Yes it is. The Caribbean owes its rainfall patterns to its climate regime, just as the Pacific Northwest does. Just as the Sahara does.
Global warming will alter those regimes.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Yes it matters who flips the coin. Every variable matters in that scenario as it will decide whether the coin is found heads or tails.

So, you have a better chance of getting heads than I do?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Phage

Surely the velocity of spin and height combined would factor in. If the height remained constant, but rate of spin could be controlled, one could differ the odds from pure chance (50/50).

This reminds me of a conversation a decade ago between two friends, one arguing that if a coin flip had landed tails 10 times in a row, it was more likely to hit heads the next spin. The other said each flip was 50/50. I see both points. They are both true, but for different reasons. A coin flipped 11 times will improbably reach tails 11 times in a row, but it will also (all things remaining equal) always have a 50/50 chance. Each roll being unaffected by the prior results.

This doesn't apply when one takes other factors into consideration. You seem to want to dismiss these other factors to keep to some other point.

These other factors are what has kept me winning at the craps table..

a reply to: Phage

Thats not what you said but whatever I'm done debating you.

a reply to: Phage

The co2 may absorb and reflect in the same way always, that is just simple physics, but you are basing your hypothesis on co2 being the only factor. So NO, it does not always act the same, at least in our detection.

Clouds are still a bad example because there is not consistency with clouds, and they have that whole being big or small, thick or thin based on molecular composition. A cirrus cloud may reflect a lot down to us, while a cumulous cloud will absorb most.

a reply to: Vector99

The co2 may absorb and reflect in the same way always, that is just simple physics, but you are basing your hypothesis on co2 being the only factor.

Reflection is not the same thing as re-emission but I guess you didn't read this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A cirrus cloud may reflect a lot down to us, while a cumulous cloud will absorb most.

Which covers more area?

a reply to: libertytoall

Thats not what you said but whatever I'm done debating you.

That's exactly what I said, but ok.

a reply to: Phage

Re-emission according to you is based on no considering factors, like the other gases in the atmosphere. They do all work together

That depends, several cirrus clouds can collectively "cover" the same area as a cumulous, with vastly different effects.

a reply to: Vector99

Re-emission according to you is based on no considering factors, like the other gases in the atmosphere. They do all work together

Yes. If a warm CO2 molecule bumps into an O2 molecule it transfers energy to it and warms it up. But the way that CO2 absorbs infrared and re-emits it doesn't change. If it doesn't bump into that O2 molecule, it re-emits the infrared in a random direction.

That depends, several cirrus clouds can collectively "cover" the same area as a cumulous, with vastly different effects.

The only real difference is due to optical density. The cirrus allows sunlight to reach the surface. Cumulus, not so much. At night, when there is no sunlight, it doesn't really matter. Both prevent heat from being radiated into space.

a reply to: Phage

No, I said it depends on all of the variables involved.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

No, I said it depends on all of the variables involved.

So, the net result of those variables is what? A better chance of getting heads? Can you adjust those variables so you get heads more than tails?

If the coin is weighted that's true. If it isn't the variables cancel each other out.
CO2 is not weighted, it re-emits in a random direction.

a reply to: Phage

so N2 has nothing at all to do with it?

a reply to: Vector99
Oh. Sorry.

If a warm CO2 molecule bumps into an NO2 molecule it transfers energy to it and warms it up. But the way that CO2 absorbs infrared and re-emits it doesn't change. If it doesn't bump into that NO2 molecule, it re-emits the infrared in a random direction.

Better? Any other molecules you want to bring up?