• 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!

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

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

CycloneWanderer said:
Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review, and Scholarly Communication (Contemporary Studies in Information Management, Policies, and Services): Gordon Moran: 9781567503425: Amazon.com: Books

There are entire books on such things. Rest assured, they provide real life examples.
Click to expand...

Again, you show no real life examples of how environmentalists are bribing scientists with money.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Well I'm not the one calling for regulating, taxing and redistributing the wealth of those who earned it - for your personal benefit.


TheNextEra said:
Sure it does, I don't believe in those things. Care to show ANY of my posts that demonstrate what you claim? I didn't think so, you just like to spout of BS and lies without actually putting your money where your mouth is.

I even have a post that says while government can help, there comes a time when a product needs to succeed or fail on it's own. Of course you wouldn't bother to have read that, because all you have are lies.

Face it, you lied, got called on it, and now you just spout more lies. I gave you a bet, you ran like the little punk you are.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

You were the one that said methane was an issue? Low and factual - which means you run away and can't debate.


DDD said:
Low and not serious for a proper debate.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

clownboy said:
Me too. I may not be onboard with the AGW cult but I've always been cool with sane efforts to reduce pollution. And you should have taken the write-off if you're eligible for it.
Click to expand...

Cult! Easy bud :) anyway, I hear ya about the write off. I just don't like subsidies and preferred to pay for my own solar system, no big deal.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
Again, you show no real life examples of how environmentalists are bribing scientists with money.
Click to expand...

Serious me's response: Really? That's what you think my argument is? ...Really? *shakes head*

Sarcastic me's response: That's a nice scarecrow you're building; what kind of straw do you use?

Troll me's response: I conceed, your trolling ability greatly exceeds mine own. It is humbling, it really is. Just when I think I have gotten to the big leagues, someone like you comes along to put me in my place. Forgive my lack of trolling skill, it is but a toothless old grandma compared to the tiger shark that is your troll.

My actual response: You have clearly misunderstood what Dwight Eisenhower was warning against when he spoke on the dangers of Research Academia and Government. I strongly suggest you do some historical reading on the meaning of his farewell address.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
Sort of. Our provincial government guarantees a price per Kilowatt per year. They started this initiatve to get people to invest in green energy for a few reasons. One, to create less pollution and two, to help with our overtapped and aged energy sources. The first few years were overly generous, but now, it's only about 22 cents more per Kilowatt than the maximum high-peak rate. My solar panels will give back to the grid, and both myself, the solar panel company and Hydro Ontario will benefit from this.
Click to expand...

That's nice. I'm glad your getting that. I love my system and when people in my nearby town have power outages, I never do. Some of them have lasted 7-10 days. Solar is low maintenance, too! Good luck with that.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'
Click to expand...


LOL...

Doubling down on a losing hand...
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

j-mac said:
Why am I not surprised that you would choose an environmental activist site to give a totally skewed outlook like this.
Click to expand...

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

CalGun said:
Well I'm not the one calling for regulating, taxing and redistributing the wealth of those who earned it - for your personal benefit.
Click to expand...

Neither have I for my personal benefit. Care to show where I have? You have made several accusations about me that you cannot prove yet you can't man-up and admit you're wrong.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
You lack of knowledge of the facts is quite apparent. You really need to educate yourself.
Click to expand...

So can you give me an example?
 
People, people, let's not do anything silly like actually read the evidence in the IPCC report. Best to assume they're wrong because that makes me feel better.
 
Deuce said:
People, people, let's not do anything silly like actually read the evidence in the IPCC report. Best to assume they're wrong because that makes me feel better.
Click to expand...
LOL...

I have read their material. I suggest you get a bit educated on the topics and try to understand what you read.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Republic Now! said:
So can you give me an example?
Click to expand...

No, DDT was overreacted to and was banned when it didn't need to be. Like most things of the era, DDT was being overused in ways that would obviously impact the environment negatively. Limited and proper use, however, can be largely beneficial.

We can thank DDT's short term use for the lack of malaria in modern day.

^^^ You forgot to mention that its use eventually caused mosquitos to become more resistant. So, in essence, DDT was only effective short term. Yet it has wreaked havoc by polluting rivers, soil and killing wildlife. Oh, and it's also a probably carcinogen.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Actually I make generalizations, accusations would have to be more specific and since I don't know you from adam my blatant statements are generalizing how you and other leftist role. As I said I'm not one for regulating, taxing and redistributing for the personal benefit of yourself or others like you who don't bother to work for it - that's what climate change is all about. Money for academia that promotes its - with no bias of course (please note sarcasm) and govt. After all those who can't do - teach right? Those who can't teach work for the govt!

TheNextEra said:
Neither have I for my personal benefit. Care to show where I have? You have made several accusations about me that you cannot prove yet you can't man-up and admit you're wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

I have read their material. I suggest you get a bit educated on the topics and try to understand what you read.
Click to expand...

You've read the IPCC report that hasn't been released?
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

CalGun said:
You were the one that said methane was an issue? Low and factual - which means you run away and can't debate.
Click to expand...

Methane has higher anthropogenic sources and at greater amount than human flatulence. Combine with the effect that it is 10 times worse than carbon and you have a factor.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
New technology is costly, but it has got to start somewhere. Without a need/market, it will pretty much stay on the shelf and will not improve/grow. I read an article yesterday that said that for the first time ever, solar and wind power is now less costly than coal. Awesome, eh?
Click to expand...

It would be awesome. Sorrily it is not yet true. Solar is quite a bit more expensive and Wind is as expensive as natural gas. Coal is much less.

But you are right. The price of alternatives is falling quite rapidly. That is what Bush argued, when he said that it would make more sense to invest in research and innovate, when the technologies were mature. Partly we owe the falling prices to the German subsidies, which were so great, that huge amounts of solar panel production were built in China. With subsidies reduced there are too many panels and the price was below production costs last time I checked. So now the Germans, having installed all that expensive generation capacity, are paying ridiculous prices for their power. I liked Bush's approach better.
 
Montecresto said:
(Reuters) - A United Nations panel of experts met on Monday to review a draft report that raises the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 percent and warns of ever more extreme weather unless governments take strong action.

Scientists and officials from more than 110 governments began a four-day meeting in Stockholm to edit and approve the 31-page draft that also tries to explain a "hiatus" in the pace of global warming this century despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.


U.N. panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus' | Reuters
Click to expand...

Here's the part where the US is suppose to take it in the shorts, while China continues to puff filth out of thousands of more smoke stacks with not a peep from the environazis. Until I see thousands of these warmers marching in Tiananmen Square to force China to comply, screw'em! Because of the 1st Amendment, the US is always an easy target for these pansies. Put your ass out there where it can get hurt if you believe the IPCC is so valid.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
Solar Power & Wind Power Now Cheaper Than Coal Power In US:
Click to expand...

Maybe Canada should sell solar and wind power instead of oil.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

American said:
Maybe Canada should sell solar and wind power instead of oil.
Click to expand...

I can only hope. The beauty of wind and solar is that every country in this whole wide world has free access to both.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
Methane has higher anthropogenic sources and at greater amount than human flatulence. Combine with the effect that it is 10 times worse than carbon and you have a factor.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is showing.

I have explained this before. Methane is not stronger than CO2. What is larger is the slope that an increase of 1 ppb (parts per billion) causes. At the levels listed in the AR4, CO2 has a radiative efficiency of 1.04 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP]. CH4 has a radiative efficiency of 3.7 x 10[SUP]-4[/SUP]. Without understanding what "radiative efficiency" is, this appears CH4 is 36 times stronger. Now the 20 year GWP (Global warming Potential) is 1 for CO2 and 72 for CH4. 1 is the standard for comparing against CO2. The 100 year GWP is again 1 for CO2, but CH4 drops to 25. Since CH4 decreases compared to CO2 from the 20 yr to 100 yr numbers, it indicates CH4 dissipates faster as well.

Now back to the radiative Efficiency.
RadiativeEfficiency_zps68a04c55.png


CO2 in the AR4 for 2005 was 378 ppm (parts per million) which equals 378,000 ppb, Methane was at 1,774 ppb. There is 214 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is CH4, placing CO2 farther along a log curve, hence, less of a slope. The two curves are approximations based on IPCC data, and it shows that CO2 is about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule. However. With CH4 at 1,774 ppb, the slope of increasing it to 1,775 ppb is 0.3664 using the ppm scale. CO2, starting at 378,000 ppb and increasing it to 378,001 ppb has a slope of 0.0141. My extrapolated numbers match pretty close to the IPCC. These slopes are 0.0003664 and 0.0000141 if I used a ppb scale. Both these numbers round to two significant digits, matching the IPCC numbers.

Now the GWP scale uses mass rather than molar values. I think they base it on tons added. Using simple baryon counts, CO2 has a mass of 44, and CH4 has a mass of 16. This is a ratio of 44:16, or 2.75:1. This is why the GWP short term is larger even larger, at 72 for 20 years. I forget the exact relationship, and I'm not going to look it up.

Thing is, we aren't going to add ppb to ppb of CH4 and CO2, or ton for ton. They will each increase by close to the same percentage. Since CO2 is actually about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule, then when we add 20% or 30% more of each, CO2 is still stronger!
 
Last edited:
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Lord of Planar said:
Your ignorance is showing.

I have explained this before. Methane is not stronger than CO2. What is larger is the slope that an increase of 1 ppb (parts per billion) causes. At the levels listed in the AR4, CO2 has a radiative efficiency of 1.04 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP]. CH4 has a radiative efficiency of 3.7 x 10[SUP]-4[/SUP]. Without understanding what "radiative efficiency" is, this appears CH4 is 36 times stronger. Now the 20 year GWP (Global warming Potential) is 1 for CO2 and 72 for CH4. 1 is the standard for comparing against CO2. The 100 year GWP is again 1 for CO2, but CH4 drops to 25. Since CH4 decreases compared to CO2 from the 20 yr to 100 yr numbers, it indicates CH4 dissipates faster as well.

Now back to the radiative Efficiency.
RadiativeEfficiency_zps68a04c55.png


CO2 in the AR4 for 2005 was 378 ppm (parts per million) which equals 378,000 ppb, Methane was at 1,774 ppb. There is 214 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is CH4, placing CO2 farther along a log curve, hence, less of a slope. The two curves are approximations based on IPCC data, and it shows that CO2 is about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule. However. With CH4 at 1,774 ppb, the slope of increasing it to 1,775 ppb is 0.3664 using the ppm scale. CO2, starting at 378,000 ppb and increasing it to 378,001 ppb has a slope of 0.0141. My extrapolated numbers match pretty close to the IPCC. These slopes are 0.0003664 and 0.0000141 if I used a ppb scale. Both these numbers round to two significant digits, matching the IPCC numbers.

Now the GWP scale uses mass rather than molar values. I think they base it on tons added. Using simple baryon counts, CO2 has a mass of 44, and CH4 has a mass of 16. This is a ratio of 44:16, or 2.75:1. This is why the GWP short term is larger even larger, at 72 for 20 years. I forget the exact relationship, and I'm not going to look it up.

Thing is, we aren't going to add ppb to ppb of CH4 and CO2, or ton for ton. They will each increase by close to the same percentage. Since CO2 is actually about 5 times stronger, molecule per molecule, then when we add 20% or 30% more of each, CO2 is still stronger!
Click to expand...

But molecule for molecule I meant that methane is 10 times worse than CO2. I know it is less abundant than CO2 but molecule by molecule is worse. As such should also be considered.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

DDD said:
But molecule for molecule I meant that methane is 10 times worse than CO2. I know it is less abundant than CO2 but molecule by molecule is worse. As such should also be considered.
Click to expand...
Molecule per molecular is an illusion created by the alarmist. It is a metric that should never be used. It is not representative an any realistic output.

If that is what you meant, your 10 times is still invalid, as CH4, at current levels, is more than 30 times stronger.

Why don't you just admit it. These alarmist numbers are silly.
 
Re: U.N. Panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'

Middleground said:
You know, over-and-over again, throughout the many years I have been posting here, I have not once seen one iota of proof that private sector groups are funding scientific organizations so they can push their warming agenda. Who are these people/businesses??? :popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Seimens, a "leader" in Green Tech, funds millions in climate research annually.

The climate scientists like James Hansen have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in awards and speaking fees for advocating government solutions to the problem they are defining (nice work if you can get it!).

Al Gore spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.

Richard Branson spends millions annually on climate research expeditions.

And so on and so on.

To hear you people talk none of the billions of dollars spent annually on climate research ever goes to a single scientist...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom