Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 162

Thread: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'[W;96]

  1. #151
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,884

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    I am trying to make people aware of other AGW gases like Methane. Prior to most of the posts here being deleted, did you read that other article of Jorgenson that I told you about?
    No, I didn't. I don't think i saw a reference to it.

    Is it an article, or another story?

  2. #152
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    02-26-18 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,184

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    No, I didn't. I don't think i saw a reference to it.

    Is it an article, or another story?
    Errr... If you are going to call my sources as "another storie" then what are we doing here? I expect you to read my sources, critically evaluate them, and come back with an honest opinion.

    If the previous AGW findings of Christianson & Gale (1999) are just more stories to you I do not see why I should provide you my main source!

    I stated methane is another green house gas that causes global warming. On molecular level I stated that it is 10 times worse. You stated (without sources) that it is 30 times worse but that this effect would fade should methane be as widespread as CO2.

    At which point I pointed to you why I was emphasizing methane as an interesting alternative AGW gas. The article then was removed due to the Debate's Saturday Malfunction issue.

    So now I would like to re-post the removed article for it is my main source for this debate. But are you serious and interested? I do not wish to throw this out there to people who consider sources without reading that they are just "another AGW unfounded story!"
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/kv.html

  3. #153
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,884

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    Errr... If you are going to call my sources as "another storie" then what are we doing here? I expect you to read my sources, critically evaluate them, and come back with an honest opinion.

    If the previous AGW findings of Christianson & Gale (1999) are just more stories to you I do not see why I should provide you my main source!

    I stated methane is another green house gas that causes global warming. On molecular level I stated that it is 10 times worse. You stated (without sources) that it is 30 times worse but that this effect would fade should methane be as widespread as CO2.

    At which point I pointed to you why I was emphasizing methane as an interesting alternative AGW gas. The article then was removed due to the Debate's Saturday Malfunction issue.

    So now I would like to re-post the removed article for it is my main source for this debate. But are you serious and interested? I do not wish to throw this out there to people who consider sources without reading that they are just "another AGW unfounded story!"
    Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company
    That is not an article. It is a book on history of warming... A story...

    You keep referring to it and are incorrect in the only fact you state. How about quoting other facts?

    You say CH4 is 10 time stringer than CO2 molecvile per molecule. At current levels, CH4 is more than 30 time stronger. You are off aby a factor of 3. Why should I attempt to read the book, when that fact is so far off?

  4. #154
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    02-26-18 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,184

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    That is not an article. It is a book on history of warming... A story...

    You keep referring to it and are incorrect in the only fact you state. How about quoting other facts?

    You say CH4 is 10 time stringer than CO2 molecvile per molecule. At current levels, CH4 is more than 30 time stronger. You are off aby a factor of 3. Why should I attempt to read the book, when that fact is so far off?
    According to which findings is it far off?
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/kv.html

  5. #155
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,884

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    According to which findings is it far off?
    I'm losing my patience with you.

    I have already stated I could find the first chapter in that book, and it didn't peak my interest to go out to pay money to read more of it.

    Care to quote the pertinent parts?


    Quote Originally Posted by DDD post #131
    Get a hold of this article, criticize it, and then we will talk:

    Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company
    My God man. It's not an article. It's a book:

    link: Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming

    Greenhouse is the illuminating history behind a scientific idea that fills's today's headlines. Christianson, author of Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae, blends the research of a scholar with a novelist's storytelling skill. As the full range of its elements come into focus, global warming becomes both a memorable human drama and an integral part of our planet's history. An essential book for anyone interested in the history of science and the very nature of scientific inquiry and speculation.
    #143:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar post #143
    Found the first chapter available online. Didn't peak my interest at all.

    I assume you own a copy. How about telling me where it disagrees with me and how. I assume you disagree with my points.

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD post #148
    Well briefly it mentions that carbon is more widely spread than methane. But as I said, molecule for molecule methane is 10 times worse than carbon. I based my position on this assertion. Hence if you want to criticize my position you need to deal with that study first.
    I did address this. It is the FACT that even us climate skeptics accept what the IPCC and other alarmists mean when they say "radiative efficiency," and the accepted value is more than 30 times. Not the 10 times you speak of. You completely fail to elaborate any insight on this 10 times, other than "Simon Says."

    Why is this so hard to comprehend?

  6. #156
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    02-26-18 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,184

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    I did address this. It is the FACT that even us climate skeptics accept what the IPCC and other alarmists mean when they say "radiative efficiency," and the accepted value is more than 30 times. Not the 10 times you speak of. You completely fail to elaborate any insight on this 10 times, other than "Simon Says."

    Why is this so hard to comprehend?
    You skeptics? That is like saying "scientists" or "experts" have said this or that! Planar, provide sources or references about the agreed upon 30 times radiative efficiency of methane if you please?

    It would be interesting to see you provide a book or an article with 30 and I with 10. We can take it from there.

    If you lost patience and no longer wish to continue, just know that my position was and is about making the audience aware of this gas. Most people speak of CO2 while methane is not mentioned as much. Methane too is damaging.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/kv.html

  7. #157
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,884

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD
    You skeptics? That is like saying "scientists" or "experts" have said this or that! Planar, provide sources or references about the agreed upon 30 times radiative efficiency of methane if you please?
    Wow...

    I mentioned the IPCC. Have you ever turned to a single chapter of the AR4?

    Here is one such chapter:

    2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials

    When I introduced my graph, I explained in effect, this part. Here is part of the linked material:

    The radiative efficiency per kilogram of CO2 has been calculated using the same expression as for the CO2 RF in Section 2.3.1, with an updated background CO2 mixing ratio of 378 ppm. For a small perturbation from 378 ppm, the RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1 (8.7% lower than the TAR value).
    Look at this carefully: RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1. This means at the 378 ppm starting point, adding 1 ppm, will increase radiative forcing by 0.1413 watts per square meter. However, the chart below, and what the radiative efficiency has become is ppb. An increase in one molecule per billion rather than one molecule per million. The chart in the link has CO2 at 1.4 x 10-5 of increased forcing for the added 1 ppb. Please notice CO2 is the first line under "Radiative Efficiency (W m–2 ppb–1)." CH4 (methane) is next, at 3.7 x 10–4. Now, if we divide 3.7 x 10–4 by 1.4 x 10-5, we get 26.4.

    Oooops....

    Looks like I'm wrong. It's more than 20 times greater, not more than 30. Closer to 30 than 20 though... Looking at molecule per molecule at starting levels.

    Now look at my graph again. Please note how closely the IPCC numbers are to mine. My slope of 0.3664 on a ppm scale is 0.0003664 (3.664 x 10–4) on the ppb scale. Very damn close to the IPCC number... My CO2 number is very close as well. 0.0141, or 0.0000141 on the ppb scale, (1.41 x 10-5.)


    Quote Originally Posted by DDD
    It would be interesting to see you provide a book or an article with 30 and I with 10. We can take it from there.
    You have never provided a link, as many times as I have asked.

    I think it's all in your head.


    Quote Originally Posted by DDD
    If you lost patience and no longer wish to continue, just know that my position was and is about making the audience aware of this gas. Most people speak of CO2 while methane is not mentioned as much. Methane too is damaging.
    This audience is well aware of methane.

    You haven't posted any links to support you contentions.

    Is this a play to you?

    I would like to add.

    CO2 from preindustrial periods have increased by 36.3%, and CH2 has increased by 145.7%. Yet... the IPCC and other experts claim for this period, 1.66 W/m^2 of warming for CO2, and 0.48 W/m^2 for CH4.

    Explain that... with the assumption CH4 is stronger than CO2.

  8. #158
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    02-26-18 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,184

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Wow...

    I mentioned the IPCC. Have you ever turned to a single chapter of the AR4?

    Here is one such chapter:

    2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials

    When I introduced my graph, I explained in effect, this part. Here is part of the linked material:



    Look at this carefully: RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1. This means at the 378 ppm starting point, adding 1 ppm, will increase radiative forcing by 0.1413 watts per square meter. However, the chart below, and what the radiative efficiency has become is ppb. An increase in one molecule per billion rather than one molecule per million. The chart in the link has CO2 at 1.4 x 10-5 of increased forcing for the added 1 ppb. Please notice CO2 is the first line under "Radiative Efficiency (W m–2 ppb–1)." CH4 (methane) is next, at 3.7 x 10–4. Now, if we divide 3.7 x 10–4 by 1.4 x 10-5, we get 26.4.

    Oooops....

    Looks like I'm wrong. It's more than 20 times greater, not more than 30. Closer to 30 than 20 though... Looking at molecule per molecule at starting levels.

    Now look at my graph again. Please note how closely the IPCC numbers are to mine. My slope of 0.3664 on a ppm scale is 0.0003664 (3.664 x 10–4) on the ppb scale. Very damn close to the IPCC number... My CO2 number is very close as well. 0.0141, or 0.0000141 on the ppb scale, (1.41 x 10-5.)



    You have never provided a link, as many times as I have asked.

    I think it's all in your head.



    This audience is well aware of methane.

    You haven't posted any links to support you contentions.

    Is this a play to you?

    I would like to add.

    CO2 from preindustrial periods have increased by 36.3%, and CH2 has increased by 145.7%. Yet... the IPCC and other experts claim for this period, 1.66 W/m^2 of warming for CO2, and 0.48 W/m^2 for CH4.

    Explain that... with the assumption CH4 is stronger than CO2.
    I do not have links I have citations of books and articles. Here is another one for methane:

    Jorgenson, A. K. (2006) Global warming and the neglected greenhouse gas. Social Forces, 84, 3, 1779-1798.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/kv.html

  9. #159
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    02-26-18 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,184

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Also why would Christianson (1999) study state that methane is 10 times as worse while yours state 26 times? Could methane's radiative efficiency increased from 1999 up until 2007 until this study of yours took place?

    References:

    Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/kv.html

  10. #160
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,884

    Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    I do not have links I have citations of books and articles. Here is another one for methane:

    Jorgenson, A. K. (2006) Global warming and the neglected greenhouse gas. Social Forces, 84, 3, 1779-1798.
    Again, we understand methane. You obviously do not, since you cannot express it in your own words.

    Goodbye.

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •