• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change: History and Politics

polgara said:
Greatings, Jack. :2wave:

As economic reality rears its ugly head, it appears that changes in many different countries' thinking are becoming inevitable. Since nothing in the universe is static - it's always in motion - the current push to control climate change means we will in effect be challenging the universe. Good luck with that! :shock.
Click to expand...

Happy Friday, Polgara.:2wave:

You have again gone to the heart of the matter.:mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]The EU this week: Germany gives up on hard targets, Turkey plans 80 coal stations, EU dithers on Paris.[/h]
The current state of play in the EU, thanks to the GWPF: The Germans have quietly given up on their own hard climate targets. They have 30% renewables, the most expensive electrons in the world, and their emissions are about the same as five years ago. The EU, climate champion, can’t even agree among the member states about how to ratify the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile the Turks are planning to build 80 new coal fired power stations (eighty!) and are subsidizing them up the kazoo. Turkey wants to use its low grade lignite deposits instead of Russian gas. After the recent purges, no one wants to criticize Erdogan, plus the energy minister happens to be President Erdogans son-in-law.
[h=3]Greens are angry that Germany dropped real targets in Climate Action Plan — call new plan a “Toothless-tiger-skin-rug”:[/h][CleanEnergyWire] The final version of the German Environment Ministry’s Climate Action Plan has been published. But concrete targets included in previous drafts have been removed, prompting the Green Party to describe the document as an “admission of government failure”.
The Climate Action Plan was announced at the Paris Climate Summit as a framework for how Germany was to reach its goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 percent by 2050.
Germany is already struggling to meet its 2020 climate targets, and is under additional pressure after Chancellor Angela Merkel repeatedly said she would make climate policy a priority of Germany’s G20 presidency next year.
But the Green Party and environmental organisations said the Climate Action Plan has lost all power as a blueprint for decarbonising Germany.
“Hendrick’s Climate Action Plan started as a tiger, but turned out to be a toothless tiger-skin rug,” said Green parliamentarians Bärbel Höhn and Oliver Krischer.
Germany increased power production from renewables to over 30 percent in 2015, yet overall CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions, as well as emissions from the power and transport sector, have stagnated or increased slightly over the last five years.
[h=3]The EU is running at full Gigacrat speed — the velocity of bureaucrats in a vacuum:[/h]The inability of the EU’s member states to agree on an effort-sharing deal could delay the ratification of the Paris Agreement until late 2017. This would see the climate deal enter into force without the world’s biggest economic bloc.
Keep reading →
Click to expand...

What the political types do not get, is that until the alternative energy is in a consumer usable form, at naturally less cost than the fossil fuels,
the majority of people will not use them.
When the alternatives are the naturally lowest cost choice, they would not be able to stop the people from using them.
For Oil, that number is a little above $90 a barrel, we are not there yet, but soon!
 
longview said:
What the political types do not get, is that until the alternative energy is in a consumer usable form, at naturally less cost than the fossil fuels,
the majority of people will not use them.
When the alternatives are the naturally lowest cost choice, they would not be able to stop the people from using them.
For Oil, that number is a little above $90 a barrel, we are not there yet, but soon!
Click to expand...

By implication, it'd probably be a good idea to try to include the full costs of fossil fuels in their present prices, rather than dumping all the costs and consequences on future generations.
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate data / Weather_stations
[h=1]New USGS study shows heat retaining concrete and asphalt have encroached upon US Climate Stations[/h]A new study from USGS by Keven Gallo and George Xian verifies what we’ve already learned and published on via the Surface Stations project; that concrete and asphalt (aka impervious surfaces) have increased near weather stations that are used to monitor climate. In this case, it is the much studied USHCN, that climate network I presented…
Click to expand...

Looks like they are finally getting it.

Still, there is more than just the heat retention. Next... another two years after I keep mentioning it here and elsewhere.... someone will write a paper on how the loss of transpiration affects these areas too.
 
Mithrae said:
By implication, it'd probably be a good idea to try to include the full costs of fossil fuels in their present prices, rather than dumping all the costs and consequences on future generations.
Click to expand...

With phony assumed costs?

Just what added costs should there be? I hope you aren't thinking of CO2...
 
Mithrae said:
By implication, it'd probably be a good idea to try to include the full costs of fossil fuels in their present prices, rather than dumping all the costs and consequences on future generations.
Click to expand...
Except that the methods of determining is perhaps more flawed than AGW itself.
In the long run CO2 could have more benefits that consequences, we simply do not know!
 
clownboy said:
Where we are evaluating CO2 production per nation, shouldn't the amount of natural sequestration be taken into account? So, take for instance the US, where we are one of the leaders in CO2 production. We also have huge tracts of forest land (Russia, Brazil, Canada and the US lead the world in that order) which are CO2 sinks.

Also, does anyone know how great the CO2 contribution from greenhouses worldwide is?
Click to expand...
Last I heard, clownboy, CO2 comprised approximately 4% of all greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere. Four percent... Supposedly greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm and environmentalists are only concerned with 4 percent of it. Not only is CO2 NOT the most prevalent greenhouse gas (water vapor is at approximately 95% of total greenhouse gases), but CO2 isn't even the most potent greenhouse gas. In other words, methane is approximately 23 times more effective in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2. Can you say environmentalists are ideological...aren't scientists in pursuit of scientific fact?
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Except that the methods of determining is perhaps more flawed than AGW itself.
In the long run CO2 could have more benefits that consequences, we simply do not know!
Click to expand...

"We don't know what this will do" isn't a good reason to keep twiddling with the dials of the planet and the ecosystems it supports. Especially since what evidence we do have suggests that >2 degrees of warming will result in somewhat more harm than benefit for humanity, and even moreso for less adaptable species (which could potentially further impact us in unforeseen ways).

What is the correct approach to take when a course of action will probably inflict harm of unknown magnitude on other human beings?

Like it or not, there are estimates out there for the long-term costs per tonne of carbon based on various IPCC emission and sensitivity scenarios. A revenue-neutral carbon tax reflecting the higher estimates would mean that if it turns out to be not as bad as feared, it's an investment in the future rather than merely protection of it.

But maybe you think fiddling with those dials and just hoping for the best is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Except that the methods of determining is perhaps more flawed than AGW itself.
In the long run CO2 could have more benefits that consequences, we simply do not know!
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the benefits outweigh the minor warming it causes.
 
cabse5 said:
, but CO2 isn't even the most potent greenhouse gas. In other words, methane is approximately 23 times more effective in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2.
Click to expand...

That needs qualified.

Under what circumstances does the 23 times apply?

Does that mean if I double CO2 concentration and get a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in forcing, that doubling CH4 gives me a 85 W/m^2 increase?

I get tired of people misrepresenting the facts by using silly the made up metrics the climatologists come up with. Without knowing what the 23 X really represents, the public is easily misinformed.
 
Mithrae said:
"We don't know what this will do" isn't a good reason to keep twiddling with the dials of the planet and the ecosystems it supports. Especially since what evidence we do have suggests that >2 degrees of warming will result in somewhat more harm than benefit for humanity, and even moreso for less adaptable species (which could potentially further impact us in unforeseen ways).

What is the correct approach to take when a course of action will probably inflict harm of unknown magnitude on other human beings?

Like it or not, there are estimates out there for the long-term costs per tonne of carbon based on various IPCC emission and sensitivity scenarios. A revenue-neutral carbon tax reflecting the higher estimates would mean that if it turns out to be not as bad as feared, it's an investment in the future rather than merely protection of it.

But maybe you think fiddling with those dials and just hoping for the best is the way to go.
Click to expand...
The Climate's sensitivity to the added CO2 is very much in question, as is the cost or benefit of the CO2.
Fiddling with the dials can also apply to the economic dials.
 
longview said:
The Climate's sensitivity to the added CO2 is very much in question, as is the cost or benefit of the CO2.
Fiddling with the dials can also apply to the economic dials.
Click to expand...

So true.

We know that the cost of any mitigation that will appease the ignorant alarmists will cost humanity gravely.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That needs qualified.

Under what circumstances does the 23 times apply?

Does that mean if I double CO2 concentration and get a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in forcing, that doubling CH4 gives me a 85 W/m^2 increase?

I get tired of people misrepresenting the facts by using silly the made up metrics the climatologists come up with. Without knowing what the 23 X really represents, the public is easily misinformed.
Click to expand...
It depends on the Global Warming Period one wishes to deal with. In the short run, say 5 years, methane is predicted to have an almost astronomical 100 times more effective rating for trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2. Say, after 20 years, that figure drops down to 72 times more effective. After 100 years, methane is approximately 23 times more effective in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2. The question is: is global warming a chronic problem that needs to be dealt with immediately for the safety of the planet? Environmentalists tend to scare people into believing there is a crisis of global warming, so I'd go with, at a minimum, the 20 year projection. Maybe you'd go with the 5 year projection?

There has been a contention that other activities other than cattle production (and gassy food production, yuk,yuk) and transportation of fossil fuels generally create methane in earth's atmosphere. Fracking has been accused of creating more methane in earth's atmosphere. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's just propaganda..

Try this link. Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown | One Green Planet Or this one from the EPA website. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases Or this link that contends there is a greater percentage of methane in earth's atmosphere due to activities like fracking and the Global Warming Periods for methane should be shortened (from 100 years) due to an increase in these activities. https://thinkprogress.org/how-the-epa-and-new-york-times-are-getting-methane-all-wrong-eba3397ce9e5#.cpf1r2ri6
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
It depends on the Global Warming Period one wishes to deal with. In the short run, say 5 years, methane is predicted to have an almost astronomical 100 times more effective rating for trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2. Say, after 20 years, that figure drops down to 72 times more effective. After 100 years, methane is approximately 23 times more effective in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2.
Click to expand...
You have no business debating this because you flat on fail at comprehending it.

You need to stop believing bloggers and pundits. They are lying to you. The RE (radiative efficiency) and GWP (global warming potential) are meaningless. They are nothing more than a useless number in real science, because they are a static slope representation on a changing curve.

cabse5 said:
It depends on the Global Warming Period one wishes to deal with. In the short run, say 5 years, methane is predicted to have an almost astronomical 100 times more effective rating for trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2. Say, after 20 years, that figure drops down to 72 times more effective. After 100 years, methane is approximately 23 times more effective in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2.
Click to expand...
The GWP only changes over time because it represents a comparison to CO2, and they decay differently in the atmosphere.

cabse5 said:
The question is: is global warming a chronic problem that needs to be dealt with immediately for the safety of the planet? Environmentalists tend to scare people into believing there is a crisis of global warming, so I'd go with, at a minimum, the 20 year projection. Maybe you'd go with the 5 year projection?
Click to expand...
Oh, we likely do have a coming crisis. But it isn't because of CO2.

cabse5 said:
There has been a contention that other activities other than cattle production (and gassy food production, yuk,yuk) and transportation of fossil fuels generally create methane in earth's atmosphere. Fracking has been accused of creating more methane in earth's atmosphere. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's just propaganda..
Click to expand...
It would take an overwheling number of cows before their extra methane production would be a problem.

Tell me...

If I double CO2, and double CH4, which is going to warm the earth more? Is CVH4 going to warm the earth 23 to 100 times more than CO2? Are you saying if CO2 warms the earth by 3 degrees that CH4 will warm it by at least 69 degrees?

cabse5 said:
Try this link. Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown | One Green Planet Or this one from the EPA website. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases Or this link that contends there is a greater percentage of methane in earth's atmosphere due to activities like fracking and the Global Warming Periods for methane should be shortened (from 100 years) due to an increase in these activities. https://thinkprogress.org/how-the-epa-and-new-york-times-are-getting-methane-all-wrong-eba3397ce9e5#.cpf1r2ri6
Click to expand...
Trust me, I already know the truth about this topic, and your links imply a lie.
 
Part 2....

Let's take a paragraph from a link from your second one:


The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.
​

Now let me beak that down to what I see it as:

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Click to expand...
OK, they are honest here. For an added one ton. RE (radiative efficiency) on the other hand is for an added ppb (part per billion.)

The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period.
Click to expand...
They leave something very critical out here when speaking to those who don't scientifically understand what GWP really is. The number only applies to adding that one ton. It doesn't apply to adding 100 tons. The number only represents one added tome over the given period.

The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.
Click to expand...
Now this is flat out wrong, because the number is not a variable. It is actually a number that changes as greenhouse gas levels change.

Several years ago, I plotted the RE based on the IPCC AR4 numbers. Came close to their numbers:

RadiativeEfficiency_zps68a04c55.png


IAW AR4 page 33, table TS.2, and table 2.14 on page 212, provided the following for ER:

CO2 0.000014 W/m^2

CH4 0.00037 W/m^2

N2O 0.00303 W/m^2

795vw02.gif


My slope numbers are 1000 times larger because I plotted with ppm instead of ppb.

Don't you see, these numbers are only good for scare tactics, because they don't apply to adding more than 1 ppb or 1 ton of a gas.

Are scare tactics part of science?

So I ask again, if CH4 is 25 times more potent than CO2, what warming will I see with a doubling of CH4?

Please stop ignoring the question. If you are going to be so focused on the GWP, then you are taking from where the sun doesn't shine if you can't give an answer. It can even have a wide error margin.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Part 2....


Please stop ignoring the question. If you are going to be so focused on the GWP, then you are taking from where the sun doesn't shine if you can't give an answer. It can even have a wide error margin.
Click to expand...
Methane has yet another problem, it's absorption wavelengths compete with H2O, and there is a lot more H2O out there.
methane.jpg
With CH4 at roughly 2 ppm and H2O at 20,000 ppm, there is a much lower mean free path for a photon
to strike an H2O molecule than a methane.
 
longview said:
Methane has yet another problem, it's absorption wavelengths compete with H2O, and there is a lot more H2O out there.
View attachment 67207767
Click to expand...

You know its funny, I never looked at that much. I really should come time. Maybe see what spectral calc says. I did this one some time back with CO2 vs, H2O:

H2OandCO202to70um300meter_zps8a5dae92.png


longview said:
With CH4 at roughly 2 ppm and H2O at 20,000 ppm, there is a much lower mean free path for a photon
to strike an H2O molecule than a methane.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I laugh every time someone exposes their ignorance by citing the GWP for CH4 when CO2 is already more than 200 times that of CH4 in the atmosphere. H2O is more than 10,000 times CH2 and about 50 times that of CO2.

GWP is simply meaningless unless comparing two gasses at about the same concentration!

Oooppppsssss......


Let me revise my remarks.

The only useful meaning of GWP is a scare tactic to scare the ignorant. Anyone using this metric in papers exposes their starting bias to the science.
 
Last edited:
Here is CH4 vs. H2O:

spectralcalc%20ch4%20anf%20h2o_zpsgzbznizs.png
 
Lord of Planar said:
Here is CH4 vs. H2O:

spectralcalc%20ch4%20anf%20h2o_zpsgzbznizs.png
Click to expand...
People should consider that photon strikes are simply the probability of a strike along the mean free path.
The mean free path is where the probability of a strike passes one.
A photon is very unlikely to pass the first 10,000 H2O molecules before striking a CH4.
It is not that it cannot happen, just the the odds are very poor.
 
longview said:
People should consider that photon strikes are simply the probability of a strike along the mean free path.
The mean free path is where the probability of a strike passes one.
A photon is very unlikely to pass the first 10,000 H2O molecules before striking a CH4.
It is not that it cannot happen, just the the odds are very poor.
Click to expand...

The AGW crown constantly mistreats how statistics work.

Par for the course.

The general difference is a 10,000:1 ratio or more along the spectra.

I'll bet the warmers here don't know how to read that log graph. Here's a linear:

spectralcalc%20ch4%20anf%20h2o%20linear_zpsxgugigx5.png


Where did the CH4 go?

Must have no significance compared to H2O...
 
Lord of Planar said:
The AGW crown constantly mistreats how statistics work.

Par for the course.

The general difference is a 10,000:1 ratio or more along the spectra.

I'll bet the warmers here don't know how to read that log graph. Here's a linear:

spectralcalc%20ch4%20anf%20h2o%20linear_zpsxgugigx5.png


Where did the CH4 go?

Must have no significance compared to H2O...
Click to expand...
If CH4's 'warming power' is insignificant when compared to the warming power of CO2, what is H2O's 'warming power' when compared to CO2's? Is there a apt comparison? Does the propensity of H2O in the 'sphere compared to CO2 make a difference (I allude to the chronic nature of global warming that's decried by environmentalists) and, if so, why do environmentalists exclusively emphasize monitoring CO2?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
If CH4's 'warming power' is insignificant when compared to the warming power of CO2, what is H2O's 'warming power' when compared to CO2? Is there a apt comparison? Does the propensity of H2O in the 'sphere compared to CO2 make a difference and, if so, why do environmentalists exclusively emphasize monitoring CO2?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could use some background reading to inform yourself of these basic issues.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom