Originally Posted By: Coprolite
The comparison was to highlight the distortion and the fact that the highest concentration in the example is the safest concentration.
If you're meaning that you used various concentrations of explosive vapor to support your belief that Creighton's analogy is 'distorsion' because the 'highest concentration is the safest...' you've not only missed the point but are myopic on CO2.
Creighton's analogy was to put some real numbers to the actual percentages of air's composition by volume in a form many are familiar with: 100 yards of a football field in relation to 100% of air's composition..by volume.
He could have well chosen a pie chart or even a pie. Except that a slice that thin out of 10" would indeed be miniscule.
Your previous answer indicates you mis-interpreted this. It's not about 'advancing' or pushing CO2 even closer to the 'goal' line, making it all the more critical. You completely missed the point! It's not about that at all...
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
With respect to Greenhouse effects, Nitrogen is irrelevant, so should not be part of the equation, but it plays heavily in the football field analogy.
This comment tells me you are myopic regarding this subject. Anything not respective of "Greenhouse effects" is not revellant and therefore, should be left out. You have indeed revealed your bias. That's rather close-minded.
What you have left out is water vapor and its significant effect on climate. Surely you don't propose reducing the oceans 70% coverage of the Earth's surface?
Don't be so dismissive of Nitrogen. It's there for a reason. Mother Nature made that decision and to her we all must yield.
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Sand might be chemically inert, but that wasn't the reason I pointed out the numbers. It was chosen earlier in the thread to point out that humans are minute, just like a grain of sand. Many rocks that have been eroded over the millenia by sand and water. Sand is actually a grain size, so there is not even a guarantee that it is inert. Claiming that something being chemically inert as support to an argument is weak.
I'd go as far to endorse that humans are about as active and destructive as almost any commonly occurring substance, even more so...
I do see where you're going with your comparison to humans vs. sand, and it's weak IMHO. I believe the original point was that Man vs. Mother Nature is very weak and 'minute' in comparison to the effects each is capable of. As I stated earlier, you can pollute your yard, your body, your water well easily enough, but believing that you or enough of you can pollute the ENTIRE PLANET is another thing entirely.
I remember when Hussein set fire to hundreds of oil wells during his retreat. If I correctly recall, many burned over a year, 24 hrs a day before they could be extinguished. Day indeed turned to night for weeks? months? on end, blocking much of the Sunlight, and polluting the air with smoke, soot and oil. The media pundits claimed catastrophic damage to the environment, the weather effects...it would take years, maybe decades to recover.
How did that turn out..on a global scale? Compare that to the recent eruption of Eyjafjallajökull which shot millions of tons of ash, CO2, and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, (and melted A LOT of ice) which the wind carried across England. And yet, the world didn't end. London didn't disappear. Her farm lands were not poisoned for decades.
Mother Nature's been doing this on Earth for 4,500,000,000 years. Modern man has only been walking around the past 35,000yrs or so. Do the math.
Back to your point...
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Sand is actually a grain size, so there is not even a guarantee that it is inert. Claiming that something being chemically inert as support to an argument is weak.
Your first sentence indicates you don't understand the difference between physical and chemical properties. What does grain size have to do with the later? It's inert-ness? That's a non-sequitor.
Finally it's your own points that are weak here. By now it should be obvious, yet it's lost on you and others who believe as you do. You've elevated your beliefs regarding MMGW above the facts. While entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. Believing so means there's nothing supporting your beliefs but hot-air.
This will be my final response to you.
