• 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!

"Before the Flood," Free on YouTube

Jack Hays said:
CO2 has increased and temperatures have risen. NFL television ratings are down and more states are considering legalizing marijuana. In neither case has any cause and effect been established.
Click to expand...

You either did not read the piece or missed this part:
...the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
Actually linking to the people who did the work is quite common for an aggregate site.

BTW, can you deny this from S/S too?
Click to expand...

Looks like Evans is a fool.

It's easy to find lots of idiots out there who write poorly by intention or ignorance. Just because Skeptical Science is right about such people, doesn't mean Skeptical Science is good on the actual facts contrary to their agenda.

"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming" is a poorly written sentence. The things I rail against often. It is completely left to interpretation. Most of us who disagree with the alarmism of the topic do agree that CO2 causes some warming. It appears that he could have meant "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are cause warming." Now that would be denier position, but what if he meant "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing most of the global warming"

Speaking about such matters, one needs to be clear. He is either a poor writer, or a cleaver Charlatan.

That is the only piece by that blogger I have ever read, so I really don't know what to think. I would have to read his other writings, but I have no desire to do that.
 
Roadvirus said:
oh...so he actually admits to being an f-ing hypocrite?
Click to expand...
I don't recall him advocating others reduce their standard of living. He said it with some remorse.

I like to keep things honest.

Please don't put me in the position of standing up for that A-hole.

There are plenty of real things to attack the movie over, without personal attacks against the actor.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Looks like Evans is a fool.

It's easy to find lots of idiots out there who write poorly by intention or ignorance. Just because Skeptical Science is right about such people, doesn't mean Skeptical Science is good on the actual facts contrary to their agenda.

"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming" is a poorly written sentence. The things I rail against often. It is completely left to interpretation. Most of us who disagree with the alarmism of the topic do agree that CO2 causes some warming. It appears that he could have meant "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are cause warming." Now that would be denier position, but what if he meant "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing most of the global warming"

Speaking about such matters, one needs to be clear. He is either a poor writer, or a cleaver Charlatan.

That is the only piece by that blogger I have ever read, so I really don't know what to think. I would have to read his other writings, but I have no desire to do that.
Click to expand...

This is pretty clear and quite succinct:

"...the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2."
 
calamity said:
This is pretty clear and quite succinct:

"...the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2."
Click to expand...
It would be difficult to say if that is the whole story,
First off we really do not have a good idea how much the 15 um wavelength has decreased, as our time measurement window is quite small.
Second, just because CO2 absorbs at 15 um, does not mean it re-emits at 15 um,(there is likely some), but rather,
the re-emission is likely a collection of longer wavelengths whose total energy is equal to the 15 um input.
Think of an 15 um excited CO2 molecule as a spinning top. Spontaneous emission starts as the top looses momentum.
Each tiny slow down, the energy no longer present, is re-emitted in random directions.
The larger the difference between the energy levels, the shorter the wavelength the emission, but all possibilities are 15 um or longer.
The point is that the re-emission could well be integrated over the entire elector-magnetic spectrum longer than 15 um.
 
longview said:
It would be difficult to say if that is the whole story,
First off we really do not have a good idea how much the 15 um wavelength has decreased, as our time measurement window is quite small.
Second, just because CO2 absorbs at 15 um, does not mean it re-emits at 15 um,(there is likely some), but rather,
the re-emission is likely a collection of longer wavelengths whose total energy is equal to the 15 um input.
Think of an 15 um excited CO2 molecule as a spinning top. Spontaneous emission starts as the top looses momentum.
Each tiny slow down, the energy no longer present, is re-emitted in random directions.
The larger the difference between the energy levels, the shorter the wavelength the emission, but all possibilities are 15 um or longer.
The point is that the re-emission could well be integrated over the entire elector-magnetic spectrum longer than 15 um.
Click to expand...
Well, it's a lot more evidence for CO2 being the culprit than volcanic soot or cosmic rays, especially since we do have a consistent directly proportional correlation between temp increase and CO2 increase.
 
calamity said:
Well, it's a lot more evidence for CO2 being the culprit than volcanic soot or cosmic rays, especially since we do have a consistent directly proportional correlation between temp increase and CO2 increase.
Click to expand...
Correlation does not equal causation! CO2 is simple the likely suspect.
It is very likely that doubling the CO2 level would cause some warming.
At a minimum, the IPCC direct response number of 1.2 C is very likely.
There is also very likely some positive feedback, to that warming, which would place a
total ECS from doubling the CO2 level at between 1.6 and 2.0 C, over a 180 year period.
If we consider the Southern Hemisphere from GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt
1880 to 2014 is a delta of .64 C
CO2 delta is 290 ppm to 400 ppm, with a direct response of 1.73 * ln(400/290)= .56C
There is only .08 C of possible amplified feedback, unless one want to think the Southern CO2
molecules are behaving contrary to their quantum characteristics.
 
longview said:
Correlation does not equal causation! CO2 is simple the likely suspect.
It is very likely that doubling the CO2 level would cause some warming.
At a minimum, the IPCC direct response number of 1.2 C is very likely.
There is also very likely some positive feedback, to that warming, which would place a
total ECS from doubling the CO2 level at between 1.6 and 2.0 C, over a 180 year period.
If we consider the Southern Hemisphere from GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt
1880 to 2014 is a delta of .64 C
CO2 delta is 290 ppm to 400 ppm, with a direct response of 1.73 * ln(400/290)= .56C
There is only .08 C of possible amplified feedback, unless one want to think the Southern CO2
molecules are behaving contrary to their quantum characteristics.
Click to expand...

Correlation coupled with reasonable evidence of causation, like the wavelength hypothesis, goes a long way though.
 
calamity said:
Correlation coupled with reasonable evidence of causation, like the wavelength hypothesis, goes a long way though.
Click to expand...
The very limited empirical evidence only points to CO2 being a greenhouse gas with a roughly 1.2 C direct response warming to doubling.
When people talk about Scientific consensus, it is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that most are in consensus about.
If we could show a steady decrease in the top of the atmosphere emissions of CO2, we could not count all the missing energy
as having been directed back to earth, statistically is will always be less than half of the energy that is directed back to earth.
Will added CO2 cause warming, almost certainly! but that has never been the skeptical question,
the skeptical question has been how much warming, and will it be catastrophic?
IMO, Oil will soon become too expensive to use as fuel, and the alternative fuels will be CO2 neutral.
 
longview said:
The very limited empirical evidence only points to CO2 being a greenhouse gas with a roughly 1.2 C direct response warming to doubling.
When people talk about Scientific consensus, it is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that most are in consensus about.
If we could show a steady decrease in the top of the atmosphere emissions of CO2, we could not count all the missing energy
as having been directed back to earth, statistically is will always be less than half of the energy that is directed back to earth.
Will added CO2 cause warming, almost certainly! but that has never been the skeptical question,
the skeptical question has been how much warming, and will it be catastrophic?
IMO, Oil will soon become too expensive to use as fuel, and the alternative fuels will be CO2 neutral.
Click to expand...

The methane is the problem. And, it's on the rise as well...due to human activity (cattle farming) and increased warming of the sea.

Oil is getting cheaper. Not sure where you see Oil getting more costly. In real dollars, oil is cheaper today than it has ever been.
 
calamity said:
The methane is the problem. And, it's on the rise as well...due to human activity (cattle farming) and increased warming of the sea.

Oil is getting cheaper. Not sure where you see Oil getting more costly. In real dollars, oil is cheaper today than it has ever been.
Click to expand...
Oil has a very finite ceiling, of between $90 and $100 a barrel.
Above that amount, it will be more profitable for refineries to make their own feedstock.
The cheap easy oil has already been found and mostly recovered.
The fracking boom, was the last gasp of many of the domestic drillers, and has run it's course.
Fracking speed up flow, at the expense of reservoir life.
Gasoline takes roughly 55 Kwh per gallon to make from water and atmospheric CO2.
55 Kwh * $.05 per Kwh= $2.75: $2.75 * 35 gallons (roughly the amount of fuel product in a barrel of oil)= $96.25
The 55 Kwh per gallon is only what is publicly acknowledged, the best petrochemical minds do not work for
people who publicly talk much about their research.
People say our Government needs to do "something" about AGW, and that is true, unfortunately,
the government has not defined the problem properly, and so can never envision a solution.
The problem is energy, not CO2, solving the energy problem will resolve any CO2 issues as a side effect.
The Government needs to unify home solar laws, to ease the path to every home in the US functionally useful
having solar panels.
This would mean doing away with the net metering laws, and coming up with something good for both the homeowner and the utility.
 
Jack Hays said:
Let me be clear: your assertion was without scientific basis. Thus: nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Not my assertion, I linked to a site that made the assertion based on....wait for it---evidence.
 
calamity said:
Actually linking to the people who did the work is quite common for an aggregate site.

BTW, can you deny this from S/S too?
Click to expand...

With their wishy washy wording, and selective cherry picking, what is there to deny?

The graph is with the H2O effect removed...


The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature.
​


And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
​

He says both, and the first is accurate. The second is misleading. Nobody disputes that CO2 is causing increased temperatures.

Do you have a point?

I also suggest you look at graphs with the water in the equation, and see how much H2O overwhelms CO2.
 
longview said:
It would be difficult to say if that is the whole story,
First off we really do not have a good idea how much the 15 um wavelength has decreased, as our time measurement window is quite small.
Second, just because CO2 absorbs at 15 um, does not mean it re-emits at 15 um,(there is likely some), but rather,
the re-emission is likely a collection of longer wavelengths whose total energy is equal to the 15 um input.
Think of an 15 um excited CO2 molecule as a spinning top. Spontaneous emission starts as the top looses momentum.
Each tiny slow down, the energy no longer present, is re-emitted in random directions.
The larger the difference between the energy levels, the shorter the wavelength the emission, but all possibilities are 15 um or longer.
The point is that the re-emission could well be integrated over the entire elector-magnetic spectrum longer than 15 um.
Click to expand...

Also, using the 600 to 2000 wavenumber corresponds to 16.666... microns to 5 microns. Really need to as low as 500 or less on the wavenumber to see H2O more.

But they are cherry picking the gasses, and pretending H2O doesn't matter!
 
calamity said:
Not my assertion, I linked to a site that made the assertion based on....wait for it---evidence.
Click to expand...

[h=2]Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?[/h]By: Nir J. Shaviv

Natural or Anthropogenic? Which mechanism is responsible for global warming over the 20th century?

According to the common perception, the temperature over the 20th century has been warming, and it is mostly anthropogenic in origin, with greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver. Others, usually called "skeptics", challenge this view and instead claim that the temperature variations are all part of natural variability. As I try to demonstrate below, the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogeniccauses will probably be more dominant over the next century. Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.

Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye. . . .

http://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom