• 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!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

donsutherland1 said:
The argument is not that the sun does not matter. The argument is that the sun's activity, which has remained remarkably constant (fluctuations are minor relative to its overall energy output), cannot explain the extent of warming that has taken place. In addition, since the mid-20th century, global temperatures have decoupled from solar variation.
Click to expand...

Yes it can, and I have explained how several times. The sun has a greater impact at ocean heat, and it takes decades for this large system to redistribute the heat.
 
donsutherland1 said:
See http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2770.pdf, pp.45-46 about the modest role played by the sun when it comes to warming, which has become negligible since 1960.
Click to expand...

Thanx.

Page 33 says the TSI is about 0.6 W/m^2 greater (0.25%), my graph above shows about 0.4 W/m^2. Like I said, more recent (and accurate) studies claim closer to a 0.24% increase.

I'll have to read it later.
 
Well, after reading the paper more closely, the 0.6 is different than what i thought. The change from a external TSI is in the range of 0.8 to 3 watt/m^2, or 0.06% to 0.22%.
 
I'm still waiting for all this data you have on indirect forcing. So far you've just done some simple math on an incredibly complicated system.
 
Deuce said:
I'm still waiting for all this data you have on indirect forcing. So far you've just done some simple math on an incredibly complicated system.
Click to expand...

That simple math proves that there is more forcing than the stated direct forcing. It will be proportional withing at least 90% of the other values. All values change because it is the sun that supplies the energy for these values.

Get back with me after you learn some science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Get back with me after you learn some science.
Click to expand...

You can't back up your strawman argument, so now you're off an running on the ad hominem attacks. Perhaps if you were to argue a point that is actually supportable, you wouldn't have to do those things.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You can't back up your strawman argument, so now you're off an running on the ad hominem attacks. Perhaps if you were to argue a point that is actually supportable, you wouldn't have to do those things.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the habit of proving my words with google. Sorry if that's what you expect.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm not in the habit of proving my words with google. Sorry if that's what you expect.
Click to expand...

You're not in the habit of proving your words at all, and no, that's not what I expect.

Anyway, you can not prove what is not so.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Warmest decade since records were kept huh. So much for Obama campaign promises.
Click to expand...

Did Obama promise to lower the world thermostat? Wow, there seems to be no end to campaign promises that can't be kept. Did he promise to make it rain here, too? We could use a bit more water. Let's start a letter writing campaign.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Did Obama promise to lower the world thermostat? Wow, there seems to be no end to campaign promises that can't be kept. Did he promise to make it rain here, too? We could use a bit more water. Let's start a letter writing campaign.
Click to expand...

Obama campaigned on so called green energy which was supposed to "heal the planet". What happened?

Obama Promises The World - YouTube
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Yet we are supposedly warmer than ever. If correlation is causation as you warmers think, wind mills are warming the planet.
Click to expand...

With that kind of reasoning, I can better understand your position.

Excuse me while I go find a sharper knife in this drawer....
 
Threegoofs said:
With that kind of reasoning, I can better understand your position.

Excuse me while I go find a sharper knife in this drawer....
Click to expand...

It's you warmers that say the correlation between burning fossil fuels and rising temps are proof of AGW so the fact that the earth has supposedly warmed even more since Obama's wind mills and solar farms have blossomed must mean they cause warmer temps too. It's your logic not mine.:lol:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It's you warmers that say the correlation between burning fossil fuels and rising temps are proof of AGW so the fact that the earth has supposedly warmed even more since Obama's wind mills and solar farms have blossomed must mean they cause warmer temps too. It's your logic not mine.:lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah. I see where you are coming from.

And I hope I never visit that place.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Did Obama promise to lower the world thermostat? Wow, there seems to be no end to campaign promises that can't be kept. Did he promise to make it rain here, too? We could use a bit more water. Let's start a letter writing campaign.
Click to expand...

This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,"
Click to expand...

Who said that and when?
 
Dittohead not! said:
OMG! A political candidate promised the world, and then couldn't deliver. Who ever heard of such a thing?
Most of them promise the moon and stars as well.
Click to expand...

Promising to "heal the planet" (stop it from warming in a warming era) IS promising the moon and stars and the sad part is people believed him. Sadder yet is he believed himself.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It's you warmers that say the correlation between burning fossil fuels and rising temps are proof of AGW so the fact that the earth has supposedly warmed even more since Obama's wind mills and solar farms have blossomed must mean they cause warmer temps too. It's your logic not mine.:lol:
Click to expand...

The basis of the scientific understanding of climate change rests on the finding that carbon dioxide has heat-trapping properties. That finding goes back to 1859.

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the human emissions (though small relative to overall emissions) has led to an imbalance where annual emissions exceed annual absorption of carbon dioxide. Consequently, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Unless new scientific breakthroughs reveal that carbon dioxide does not trap heat, the scientific understanding of a human influence on climate change is a solid one. Where uncertainties exist concerns the exact climate sensitivity to a given increase in carbon dioxide on account of various complex feedbacks.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The basis of the scientific understanding of climate change rests on the finding that carbon dioxide has heat-trapping properties. That finding goes back to 1859.

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the human emissions (though small relative to overall emissions) has led to an imbalance where annual emissions exceed annual absorption of carbon dioxide. Consequently, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Unless new scientific breakthroughs reveal that carbon dioxide does not trap heat, the scientific understanding of a human influence on climate change is a solid one. Where uncertainties exist concerns the exact climate sensitivity to a given increase in carbon dioxide on account of various complex feedbacks.
Click to expand...
Co2 does not "trap" heat, it can absorb and re-emit radiation in the infrared spectrum,
but the excitation period of the molecule is less than a 100 ms.
The expected heat gain from doubling Co2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would be between
1.5 and 2 degrees C, much lower that the 3 to 4 degrees C put out by the alarmist.
To get Co2 to behave outside the known laws of physics, they would need to describe
some other type of interaction with other gasses.
The problem with the hypothesis of AGW, is that the secondary interactions necessary,
have not been described, tested or verified.
(To be fair, no one can test something that has not been defined.)
 
donsutherland1 said:
The basis of the scientific understanding of climate change rests on the finding that carbon dioxide has heat-trapping properties. That finding goes back to 1859.

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the human emissions (though small relative to overall emissions) has led to an imbalance where annual emissions exceed annual absorption of carbon dioxide. Consequently, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Unless new scientific breakthroughs reveal that carbon dioxide does not trap heat, the scientific understanding of a human influence on climate change is a solid one. Where uncertainties exist concerns the exact climate sensitivity to a given increase in carbon dioxide on account of various complex feedbacks.
Click to expand...

What you are ignoring is periods in earths history where C02 levels have been higher but earth has been cooler so once again your argument is based on present day correlation is causation. You ignore other factors both known and unknown so my wind mills and solar panels cause global warming statement is every bit as valid as your AGW hypotheses. Here is the solar panel wind mill hypotheses.


"Large concentrations of solar collection devices on the surface of the earth by comparing the efficiencies could actually cause more global warming that any of the diffuse greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. What is the difference? Green house gases are projected by the self appointed experts in the field to maybe warm the surface of the earth as much as 5% in over 100 years in the very worst case scenario. So if average temperature is say 65 degrees for the earth then the average temperature the green house gas pollution is going to cause will be at worst 1.05 x 65 degree Fahrenheit. that would change world average temperatures (assuming 65 degrees ) to 68.25 degrees. We are told that is enough to melt the ice caps of the planet and cause global devastation.

Now if the world's industrial country's all go to the most efficient solar collectors possible which are at 95% efficiency then some percentage of the earth's surface exposed to the sun for collection purposes will be able to take 65 degree water and make it 120 degrees or more. Thanks to the conservation of energy that energy retained from sunlight does make the earth warmer. It takes a lot less sun exposed earth surface area for solar energy collection purposes unfortunately for the myth of solar energy this energy retention from sunlight is more likely to heat the atmosphere at night than is the carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere in any diffuse atmospheric concentrations.

Have you ever sat next to a building in the evening after the sun goes down and noticed that the building remains warm radiating heat back into the atmosphere most of the night? Efficient solar panel collectors often are designed as black box greenhouses to maximize their efficiency heating water. These devices tend to have black interior covered with a sheet of glass that give them the added greenhouse retention effect. Greenhouse gases cannot even start to compete. Making more assumptions about possible unintended consequences , we know that in the USA less than 2% of the land are in the United states is developed as urban and suburban areas. In order to substitute solar energy collection for existing fuels that means probably that more that possibly larger areas than 2% of the land area might be needed would be needed as an energy alternative to fossil fuel systems. If 2% of the land mass retained 35.25 to 95 percent more energy to the earth's net heat it should have some effect on the environment. 32.25 percent efficiency would require more area exposed to the sun yet. Those types of solar collectors convert sunlight directly to electric current. Electric current ultimately runs into resistance and yields heat that keeps the earth ever so much warmer. Conservation of energy applies. Energy collected is neither created or destroyed but it does get retained longer which can and is known to alter local weather .

Similar problems exist with wind energy. Wind tends to dissipate energy by kinetic means. A wind generator concentrates that wind energy into electric current. Electric current eventually will radiate heat into the atmosphere especially after it reaches your computer. Ever notice that your computer may contain a fan inside? That is to cool off the computer because of the conservation / conversion of energy to heat from your computer . Ever try opening the door of your electric range oven to help warm the room on a cold day after you have just baked something?

Solar energy enthusiasts want to cover whole desert basins like the Mohave desert with elaborate solar collection devices. This is a major way to possibly cool down the local desert in the day time in the shadows of the equipment, keep the desert somewhat warmer at night and run millions of ovens and toasters in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Less carbon dioxide may have gotten hot in the atmosphere because less petroleum got burned to generate the electricity but a huge amount of energy is just being moved to other locations that might not have been as hot before. There is a real possibility once one starts playing around with the numbers that solar systems may have much larger global warming unintended consequences than just continuing using coal , oil and natural gas to generate electricity and hot water for hot water tanks. The same calculations can be done that show beaming energy down from orbiting solar collectors in outer space could actually do more to tip the balance of global temperatures than just using fossil fuels. When it comes to solar energy development be careful what you wish for."


Solar Power Collectors May Cause More Global Warming Than Greenhouse Gases - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom