Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
First, just because it hasn't gotten as bad as some predicted doesn't mean the CO2 increases are not having a negative effect. As I've said, repeatedly, and for some reason you keep ignoring, the extended, yet probably temporary, lull in sunspot activity may be temporarily masking the more severe effects of GW. Feel free to ignore this point once again.
To my other point, do you really see no benefits from not burning oil, coal, and natural gas, even if CO2 is not an issue? Are you completely unaware of the other effects of fossil fuel pollution and environmental damage?

+ 1

I would like to add: Are you completely unaware of the effect of fossil fuel pollution on the Ocean Acidification issue?
 

Kaivball,

As previously discussed, the following is a brief summary of the scientific basics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory:

1. The laws of physics require that the long wavelength infrared heat energy emitted by the earth into space must equal the incoming visible and ultraviolet solar energy in order to avoid heating or cooling the earth over time. Over the past 11,000 years, with the exception of relatively minor local perturbations, or changes attributable to events such as global cooling from large discharges of volcanic aerosols, incoming and outgoing energy flows have been generally in balance and the climate has been relatively stable.

2. Greenhouse gases differ from the principal constituents of the atmosphere in that greenhouse gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation but are somewhat opaque to and trap the infrared heat energy that is emitted by the earth thereby insulating the planet and causing it to warm to restore the energy balance between incoming and outgoing energy.

3. Human activity, principally the combustion of fossil carbon in the form of coal, oil and natural gas to create CO2, is adding increasing volumes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Current emissions exceed 30 billion tons per year.

4. About half of the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity are retained in the atmosphere and are increasing the percentages of the greenhouse gases very substantially relative to the stable levels over the past millennia. CO2, has gone up by more than a third and continues to rise, and methane has increased by approximately 150 percent.

5. The greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by human activity will remain in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, and block the escape of some heat energy thereby retaining such energy in the oceans, earth and lower atmosphere.

6. The average temperature on the earth will initially rise slowly over time due to the thermal lag associated with the heat storage capacities of the oceans but the rate of change is expected to increase over time as the levels of CO2 increase and due to a variety of positive feedback effects, increased water vapour in the atmosphere being principal among them.

If you are truly skeptical about AGW, I would welcome the opportunity to learn from you which element or elements of the above six part summary you believe is unproven, and the basis for your belief.

It would also be helpful if you could identify a national or international science academy (or another scientific body of comparable standing) which disputes the scientific consensus, or even a single, recognized, peer-reviewed, climate scientist who takes issue with the scientific consensus and refer us to a publication explaining the basis for his or her position. The articles you reference merely reflect an ongoing, meaningless PR exercise, and in the absence of substantive (i.e., peer reviewed) scientific support actually undercut the position and arguments that you are trying to advance.
 
Aww, Kaivball, even you can't believe THAT source. Did you read the other *articles* in that rag? Or are you just flailing about looking for anything to post here in this thread to get a rise out of people? (Honestly, I think you just get a kick out of doing that.)

I suggest the rest of you quit taking him so seriously. :)
 
For some, facts and scientific evidence are some conspiracy so doesn't matter what evidence you bring to the table. You can't reach those people. Others are simply misinformed and a simple explanation helps them reach the correct conclusion.
 
So much for the accuracy of the heavily relied upon computer models...
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1388821320.696215.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1388821320.696215.jpg
    33.8 KB · Views: 133
It seems that Kaivball's strategy is the "Gish Gallop":

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."
The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

Note that Kaivball never responds to any rebuttals of his position - he simply tosses out another 4-5 half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments each time he visits the site.

Since he never responds to rebuttals, there really is no point in responding to his posts at all unless you simply want to set the facts straight for the record. Do not expect a response from him, he might as well be a bot.
 
I suggest the rest of you quit taking him so seriously. :)
Unfortunately I believe he is serious, and there is a large group who really do think the same way, and are trying to influence policy. It's very serious. He doesn't care about truth, he doesn't care about the credibility of the data he links, he only cares that it mimics his equally uninformed viewpoint.
 
Unfortunately I believe he is serious, and there is a large group who really do think the same way, and are trying to influence policy. It's very serious. He doesn't care about truth, he doesn't care about the credibility of the data he links, he only cares that it mimics his equally uninformed viewpoint.

And every time he takes 20 seconds to do a new google search, throws some links on this page, and walks off ... he ignites a firestorm of conversation. Don't get me wrong, I think it's GOOD conversation. But in terms of emotional investment, I'd put him at the low end of the scale and the rest of this thread pegged at the high end.

And you all play every time, even though it will not change his opinion one iota. Again, I think the conversation is great. I think it sharpens everyone's arguments for others they may run into. But sheez, guys. Don't let him get under your skin.
 
Record colds across the US and the globe.

Record CO2 levels.

If this was a mild winter the AGW alarmist would take this as definitive proof that doom is near.

No warming in 15 years.

Yet, they keep beating the drum that man made CO2 caused global warming.

You can't make this stuff up. Unwavering cult like faith in the flawed science and computer models. But ready at moments notice to wreck economies and create hardships.

Interesting.
 
Yup, creating new jobs in sustainable industries, like the thousands created at Tesla, are sure going to wreck this economy in a moments notice. Be afraid.
So temporary record low temperatures are proof that AGW is false what are temporary record high temperatures? Or do you only notice when it's cold?
 
Record colds across the US and the globe.

Record CO2 levels.

If this was a mild winter the AGW alarmist would take this as definitive proof that doom is near.

No warming in 15 years.

Yet, they keep beating the drum that man made CO2 caused global warming.

You can't make this stuff up. Unwavering cult like faith in the flawed science and computer models. But ready at moments notice to wreck economies and create hardships.

Interesting.

So your strategy here is to keep repeating the same flawed arguments over and over? lol.

jiFfM.jpg


You had mentioned more than one myth.

First of all, no scientists have ever claimed that record colds weren't possible in a warming world. The key is that there are fewer record colds and more record highs. SKS explains:
Does cold weather disprove global warming?


If this was a mild winter the AGW alarmist would take this as definitive proof that doom is near.

Straaaaaaaaaaaaawman

No warming in 15 years.

I'm tired of debunking this one...
What has global warming done since 1998?

Yet, they keep beating the drum that man made CO2 caused global warming.

Since you really still don't get it, this video was "intelligently designed" for you:
27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC - YouTube
 
Interesting reminder to those that give the IPCC biblical connotations.

Global warming and the chilling of politics | Environment | spiked

My goodness, the garbage just keeps on coming.

The laws of physics applicable to the manmade changes to the atmosphere are non-negotiable and completely apolitical.

Kaivball, in order to contribute to this discussion you need to bring some science to this thread.

As previously requested:

If you are truly skeptical about AGW, I would welcome the opportunity to learn from you which element or elements of the above six part summary you believe is unproven, and the basis for your belief.

It would also be helpful if you could identify a national or international science academy (or another scientific body of comparable standing) which disputes the scientific consensus, or even a single, recognized, peer-reviewed, climate scientist who takes issue with the scientific consensus and refer us to a publication explaining the basis for his or her position. The articles you reference merely reflect an ongoing, meaningless PR exercise, and in the absence of substantive (i.e., peer reviewed) scientific support actually undercut the position and arguments that you are trying to advance.

Unless you can bring some meaningful, scientific input please spare us the ongoing references to meaningless, pseudo-scientific fossil-industry propaganda.
 
Kaviball, all the "new" stuff you just posted is just a rehash of stuff that has already been debunked many times over already. Within the last week for that matter. You don't actually READ anything we post, do you?

Look, if you want to keep trolling the thread, you're gonna have to come up with some NEW stuff. We're depending on you.