Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[SageBrush]

2. As @nwdiver (here)and @ggies07 (here) has stated up-thread, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius demonstrated the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere back in 1896, and his observation has been confirmed by many scientists over the following 120+ years.

Your point is close enough for government work but if you don't mind a little nitpicking:

Arrhenius demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and calculated its radiative forcing. That is not equivalent to calculating atmospheric temperature rise because other forcings (both positive and negative) are in play and a large fraction of the heat is captured outside of the atmosphere -- in the sea, for example.

 

[jrad6515]

I notice, you STILL could not come up with a single counter-argument to my proof.
You keep trying to weasel out, by asking irrelevant questions. Noted!
So let's re-focus to the questions we are debating:

#1. Do you deny that the human activity of burning fossil fuels deposits dozens of GigaTons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year ?
If so, then present some counter-evidence that it is not happening.
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter | New Scientist
Doha infographic gets the numbers wrong, underestimates human emissions | Carbon Brief
The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission
Do you deny that humanity drives around in hundreds of millions of fossil fuel burning vehicles ?
Do you deny that hundreds of millions of houses are being heated by burning fossil fuels ?
Do you deny the existence of coal fired power plants and various industries burning fossil fuels ?

#2 Do you deny that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes green-house effect causing global temperature rise ?
If so, then present counter-evidence that negates the proven scientific work referenced (here) and (here).
You need to counter Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius demonstration of the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature with peer reviewed scientific literature.

#3. Do you deny The straight logical conclusion from steps 1 and 2 together, i.e. since humans are dumping copious amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, is that human activity causes warming ?
If so, you are a lost cause, because that is simply logic 101, if you deny that then your are no more than a religious zealot unwilling to accept proof and logic against your superstitious belief.

Blah, blah, blah...

Sorry if I triggered you. I realize that you are very sensitive and that facing the reality of your science denial is causing you problems with focusing, lol.

Once again you embarrass yourself by not addressing the question I asked. Why did we have an ice age when CO2 was at least 5X higher than it is now and why has the earth not burned up when CO2 has been higher than it is now for almost all of recorded history? Clearly you have no clue. Keep making a fool of yourself. It is fun to watch!

This isn't you speaking is it (at 0:14)? Maybe it is why you are having problems focusing?:

 

[ZsoZso]

Blah, blah, blah...

Sorry if I triggered you. I know that facing the reality of your science denial is causing you problems, lol.

Once again you embarrass yourself by not addressing the questions I asked.

Why did we ...

[lots of irrelevant garbage removed, nothing addressing any of the questions asked!]

 

[jrad6515]

Blah, blah, blah...

Sorry if I triggered you. I know that facing the reality of your science denial is causing you problems, lol.

Once again you embarrass yourself by not addressing the questions I asked.

I love it when a snowflake decompensates when he can't address cold, hard truths that upset his delusional worldview. Triggered much comrade? This is fun!

 

[ZsoZso]

@jrad6515
I notice, you STILL could not come up with a single counter-argument to my proof.
You keep trying to weasel out, by asking irrelevant questions. Noted!
So let's re-focus to the questions we are debating:

#1. Do you deny that the human activity of burning fossil fuels deposits dozens of GigaTons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year ?
If so, then present some counter-evidence that it is not happening.
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter | New Scientist
Doha infographic gets the numbers wrong, underestimates human emissions | Carbon Brief
The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission
Do you deny that humanity drives around in hundreds of millions of fossil fuel burning vehicles ?
Do you deny that hundreds of millions of houses are being heated by burning fossil fuels ?
Do you deny the existence of coal fired power plants and various industries burning fossil fuels ?

#2 Do you deny that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes green-house effect causing global temperature rise ?
If so, then present counter-evidence that negates the proven scientific work referenced (here) and (here).
You need to counter Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius demonstration of the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature with peer reviewed scientific literature.

#3. Do you deny The straight logical conclusion from steps 1 and 2 together, i.e. since humans are dumping copious amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, is that human activity causes warming ?
If so, you are a lost cause, because that is simply logic 101, if you deny that then your are no more than a religious zealot unwilling to accept proof and logic against your superstitious belief.

ps: 3 months + 1 week + 2 days you failed to address my proof, but keep posting other stuff, trying to weasel out

 

[jrad6515]

@jrad6515
I notice, you STILL could not come up with a single counter-argument to my proof.
You keep trying to weasel out, by asking irrelevant questions. Noted!
So let's re-focus to the questions we are debating:

#1. Do you deny that the human activity of burning fossil fuels deposits dozens of GigaTons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year ?
If so, then present some counter-evidence that it is not happening.
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter | New Scientist
Doha infographic gets the numbers wrong, underestimates human emissions | Carbon Brief
The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission
Do you deny that humanity drives around in hundreds of millions of fossil fuel burning vehicles ?
Do you deny that hundreds of millions of houses are being heated by burning fossil fuels ?
Do you deny the existence of coal fired power plants and various industries burning fossil fuels ?

#2 Do you deny that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes green-house effect causing global temperature rise ?
If so, then present counter-evidence that negates the proven scientific work referenced (here) and (here).
You need to counter Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius demonstration of the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature with peer reviewed scientific literature.

#3. Do you deny The straight logical conclusion from steps 1 and 2 together, i.e. since humans are dumping copious amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, is that human activity causes warming ?
If so, you are a lost cause, because that is simply logic 101, if you deny that then your are no more than a religious zealot unwilling to accept proof and logic against your superstitious belief.

ps: 3 months + 1 week + 2 days you failed to address my proof, but keep posting other stuff, trying to weasel out

You haven't posted ANY proof of AGW. Show us the human fingerprint in the temperature record. You can't so just keep embarrassing yourself!

I'll check back in a little later. Hopefully by then you will won't be as triggered by the sensory overload like your comrade in the video, lol.

 

[mspohr]

Seeds, kale and red meat once a month – how to eat the diet that will save the world

Seeds, kale and red meat once a month – how to eat the diet that will save the world

The world faces many challenges over the coming decades, but one of the most significant will be how to feed its expanding global population. By 2050, there will be about 10 billion of us, and how to feed us all, healthily and from sustainable food sources, is something that is already being looked at. The Norway-based thinktank Eat and the British journal the Lancet have teamed up to commission an in-depth, worldwide study, which launches at 35 different locations around the world today, into what it would take to solve this problem – and the ambition is huge

Food production, the report states, “is the largest source of environmental degradation”.

has identified a daily win-win diet – good for health, good for the environment – that is loosely based on the much-lauded Mediterranean diet, but with fewer eggs, less meat and fish, and next to no sugar. Dairy is, for western populations anyway, going to be a sticking point, because the suggested diet does not include much.

 

[mspohr]

Climate crisis reducing land’s ability to sustain humanity, says IPCC

Climate crisis reducing land’s ability to sustain humanity, says IPCC

The climate crisis is damaging the ability of the land to sustain humanity, with cascading risks becoming increasingly severe as global temperatures rise, according to a landmark UN report compiled by some of the world’s top scientists.

 

[ZsoZso]

You haven't posted ANY proof of AGW. Show us the human fingerprint in the temperature record. You can't so just keep embarrassing yourself!

STOP DENYING FACTS!
I have posted the 3 step proof in Post #5161 of this thread on April 30:
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

Then re-posted it several times in the past few days.
You asked for proof, I provided a simple 3-step proof.
Now, you ACCEPT my proof, or counter any of the 3 steps.
I have been asking repeatedly: which of the points do you deny ?
You have no answer to that!
Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that you have accepted the proof.

Thank you, our debate is completed, and you have lost!

 

[jrad6515]

Statistician: Obama admin "rigged" climate change models to inflate the "cost of carbon"

Not exactly a big surprise. Socialist wackos will go to any extreme to promote their fake AGW agenda.

 

[jrad6515]

STOP DENYING FACTS!
I have posted the 3 step proof in Post #5161 of this thread on April 30:
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

Then re-posted it several times in the past few days.
You asked for proof, I provided a simple 3-step proof.
Now, you ACCEPT my proof, or counter any of the 3 steps.
I have been asking repeatedly: which of the points do you deny ?
You have no answer to that!
Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that you have accepted the proof.

Thank you, our debate is completed, and you have lost!

I thought I had dumbed this down enough for you but apparently I haven’t.

Obviously, humans have contributed a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, on the order of about 1/10,000 of the total gas content of the atmosphere. In a laboratory vacuum this would probably amount to about 0.3 to 0.4C warming effect in the atmosphere. Apparently this hasn’t even happened because there’s no equatorial tropospheric hotspot which is a requirement of the flawed models that you and the other science deniers here love so much. Additionally what you and your fellow science illiterates here fail to realize is that there are considerable feedbacks involved. For example, if it does warm up water evaporates, clouds increase, and the atmosphere cools. None of the models can account for this accurately as is evidenced by their laughably wrong predictions so far.

The only “proof“ that a real scientist will accept is if there is a discernible human imprint on the temperature record. There absolutely is none to this point. Therefore you lose. Thanks for playing!

 

[nwdiver]

I thought I had dumbed this down enough for you but apparently I haven’t.

Obviously, humans have contributed a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, on the order of about 1/10,000 of the total gas content of the atmosphere. In a laboratory vacuum this would probably amount to about 0.3 to 0.4C warming effect in the atmosphere. Apparently this hasn’t even happened because there’s no equatorial tropospheric hotspot which is a requirement of the flawed models that you and the other science deniers here love so much. Additionally what you and your fellow science illiterates here fail to realize is that there are considerable feedbacks involved. For example, if it does warm up water evaporates, clouds increase, and the atmosphere cools. None of the models can account for this accurately as is evidenced by their laughably wrong predictions so far.

The only “proof“ that a real scientist will accept is if there is a discernible human imprint on the temperature record. There absolutely is none to this point. Therefore you lose! Thanks for playing.

For the 38th time... if it's not CO2... what's causing the increased warming?????????

Super-simple question for a super-simple minded troll... why no answer????

 

[S'toon]

1) A statician is not a climate scientist

2) The Obama administration did not meddle with science, unlike the Trump administration

3) The Heritage Foundation is funded in part by oil companies.

<snip>

Heritage Foundation Called Out for Blocking Action on Climate Change
In July of 2016, nineteen U.S. Senators delivered a series of speeches denouncing climate change denial from 32 organizations with links to fossil-fuel interests, including the Heritage Foundation.[7] Sen. Whitehouse (RI-D), who led the effort to expose "the web of denial" said in his remarks on the floor that the purpose was to,

"shine a little light on the web of climate denial and spotlight the bad actors in the web, who are polluting our American discourse with phony climate denial. This web of denial, formed over decades, has been built and provisioned by the deep-pocketed Koch brothers, by ExxonMobil, by Peabody coal, and by other fossil fuel interests. It is a grim shadow over our democracy in that it includes an electioneering effort that spends hundreds of millions of dollars in a single election cycle and threatens any Republican who steps up to address the global threat of climate change. . . . t is long past time we shed some light on the perpetrators of this web of denial and expose their filthy grip on our political process. It is a disgrace, and our grandchildren will look back at this as a dirty time in America’s political history because of their work.”[7]



<snip>

The Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. In its annual report, it states that "we rely on the financial contributions of the general public: individuals, foundations and corporations. We accept no government funds and perform no contract work."[43]

The Heritage Foundation has received funding from organizations with connections to the Koch brothers. In 2012, the Heritage Foundation received $650,000 from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, which was one of the Koch Family Foundations before it closed in 2013. The Lambe Foundation contributed at least $4.8 million to the Heritage Foundation between 1998 and 2012.

<snip>

While corporations provided only $1.5 million -- 4% -- of Heritage’s contributions in 2006, they nonetheless have significant interest in the foundation's policy output. These include defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil

<snip>

Full article at:
Heritage Foundation - SourceWatch

The Heritage Foundation was one of the most influential forces for the Trump transition team. They have a long history of climate denialism
Heritage Foundation

 

[mspohr]

'Part of German soul' under threat as forests die

'Part of German soul' under threat as forests die

forest equivalent to more than 200,000 football fields.

Forests are one of the most efficient ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and in Germany alone they are able to absorb 62 million tonnes of CO2 – about 7% of the country’s emissions – every year.

 

[ZsoZso]

Obviously, humans have contributed a large amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, about 1/3 of the total CO2 content of the atmosphere. In a laboratory vacuum this would probably amount to about 0.3 to 0.4C warming effect in the atmosphere. Additionally there are considerable positive feedbacks involved. For example, if it does warm up water evaporates, the additional H2O, which is even stronger greenhouse gas causes further temperature rise. The models that account for this have accurately predicted the warming we see today from 37 years ago.

Thank you for admitting your complete defeat and accepting the proof of AGW.
Our debate is now over.

 

[nwdiver]

'Part of German soul' under threat as forests die

'Part of German soul' under threat as forests die

forest equivalent to more than 200,000 football fields.

Forests are one of the most efficient ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and in Germany alone they are able to absorb 62 million tonnes of CO2 – about 7% of the country’s emissions – every year.

It's events like this that feed my skepticism of reforestation even as a small part of the solution to AGW. It's a little like painting a house that's on fire. Even if it's a special fire retardant paint... focus on putting out the fire first.

Some parts of the world are simply going to become incompatible with forests as weather patterns shift and it's really hard to predict where that will be....

I was reviewing the PV systems I've installed yesterday. I'm up to 160kW now. Collectively they've produced >700MWh. Estimated production next year is ~250MWh. I'd need to plant ~20,000 trees (~30 acres of forest) to have the same effect and those trees would need to survive for >20 years and not decay when they die.

 

[jrad6515]

For the 38th time... if it's not CO2... what's causing the increased warming?????????

Super-simple question for a super-simple minded troll... why no answer????

For the 8 millionth time for the moron (you) who thought that the earth did not exist before the Vostok Ice record 400,000 years ago, we don't know what has caused the *very slight* warming over the last 50-60 years but the one thing that we do know is that is not CO2 since CO2 levels lag temperature change, not vice versa. The most likely cause is complex solar cycles.

BTW, why don't you tell me what caused the even greater warming in the first half of the last century or in the early 1700's in England? Hint: There were no SUV's back then.

While you are at it can you explain why we had an ice age when CO2 was 10X higher than now? No, thought not.

 

[jrad6515]

I am such an idiot that I can't refute any of jrad's scientific facts so I must misquote him so I can claim a faux victory after being schooled and embarrassing myself repeatedly in a public forum.

Our debate is now over.

FIFY

 

[jrad6515]

The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data. Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity.

Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up. In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.

61% Of NOAA USHCN Adjusted Temperature Data Is Now Fake

 

[mspohr]

What Kind of Rebellion will it Take to Save Humanity from Extinction? - Resilience
As 350.org founder Bill McKibbon put it, we are “in a fight, not a discourse” and “like most fights, it [is] about power and money. Another book or symposium [is] unlikely to move the needle.”
In the long run, “we have to have a full ecological and social revolution, transcending existing capitalist relations of production”.