• 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!

The Ugly Attacks of AGW Advocates

Phys251 said:
So you're okay with the Earth's climate being led into a potentially irrecoverable catastrophe because supporters of science called you a meanie-poo head. Got it.
Click to expand...

The problem here is the premise. It is politically charged opinion. Some people (including some climatologists) don't accept that the climate is headed for irrecoverable catastrophe. You have rudely presented an opinion.
 
fmw said:
The problem here is the premise. It is politically charged opinion. Some people (including some climatologists) don't accept that the climate is headed for irrecoverable catastrophe. You have rudely presented an opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh, riiiight, tone matters more than substance. :roll:
 
fmw said:
No I discussed your substance.
Click to expand...

Let's just say for the sake of argument that irreversible climate change has 50/50 odds. If it turns out that it doesn't happen, yet we pass strong environmental measures anyway, then we'd get clean air, clean water, and energy companies that have to play by the rules instead of outsourcing their losses to the public, among other things. But if it turns out that irreversible climate change does happen, and we don't pass strong environmental measures, then we are in serious trouble.
 
Phys251 said:
Man what's up with the typos? Anyway. You seeing what's been happening to the ice shelf on Greenland? That, for one.
Click to expand...

Please tell me what you think is happening to Greenland's ice sheet and what the effect of this will be.
 
Phys251 said:
WOW. You utterly refuse to face a KNOWN FACT and yet have the gall to accuse me of doing the same.

That, for the rest of those of you reading, is an example of why we cannot have an honest discussion of climate science.
Click to expand...

He answered your question then repeated the question you have yet to answer.

And there is always a lot more water in the atmosphere than CO2. Yes it rain out quickly but more keeps evaporating or transpiring.
 
Phys251 said:
Let's just say for the sake of argument that irreversible climate change has 50/50 odds. If it turns out that it doesn't happen, yet we pass strong environmental measures anyway, then we'd get clean air, clean water, and energy companies that have to play by the rules instead of outsourcing their losses to the public, among other things. But if it turns out that irreversible climate change does happen, and we don't pass strong environmental measures, then we are in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

What F.ing trouble?????????

Serriously can you answer what it is you think is going to happen?

And do you think the present use of fuel as food, increasing the price of basic foods by 30 to 70% and thus causing vast hunger in th epoor world, is worth it???
 
Tim the plumber said:
What F.ing trouble?????????

Serriously can you answer what it is you think is going to happen?

And do you think the present use of fuel as food, increasing the price of basic foods by 30 to 70% and thus causing vast hunger in th epoor world, is worth it???
Click to expand...

So you would choose filthy water, dirty air, and an overall worse quality of life in that 50/50 scenario?
 
Tim the plumber said:
He answered your question then repeated the question you have yet to answer.

And there is always a lot more water in the atmosphere than CO2. Yes it rain out quickly but more keeps evaporating or transpiring.
Click to expand...

OK, let's try this one more time: The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is orders of magnitude more than that of an H2O molecule. If you cannot accept this basic fact, then you are in zero understanding to try to lecture me about basic science.
 
Phys251 said:
OK, let's try this one more time: The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is orders of magnitude more than that of an H2O molecule. If you cannot accept this basic fact, then you are in zero understanding to try to lecture me about basic science.
Click to expand...

How about basic math then ? How is attempting to alter the 0.01% of atmospheric volume humans are allegedly responsible for via extra CO2 going to change anything other than to impoverish millions in the attempt ?
 
I only did the calculations once, so maybe I misplaced a decimal or something. Anyway, I get a global energy imbalance of 4.92 W/m^2 for 1,000 years, directed at the ice, in order to melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica.
 
Phys251 said:
Let's just say for the sake of argument that irreversible climate change has 50/50 odds. If it turns out that it doesn't happen, yet we pass strong environmental measures anyway, then we'd get clean air, clean water, and energy companies that have to play by the rules instead of outsourcing their losses to the public, among other things. But if it turns out that irreversible climate change does happen, and we don't pass strong environmental measures, then we are in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

Weak argument. You could make it about any disaster. Nothing wrong with clean air and clean water. We all want that. The huge majority of us have that now. Energy companies that pass their losses on to the public are all renewable energy companies. That kind of energy is too expensive in the face of traditional alternatives. When that changes so will the face of energy without you or the government lifting a finger.
 
Jack Hays said:
Advocates of an increasingly dubious orthodoxy.
Click to expand...

Why are you against a clean environment and a balanced climate? That is baffling.

It exists. Science is very clear on that. There is no question...it's settled science in the same way that the earth being round is settled science.

Ask yourself this question: What happens if we proceed in denying global warming and not trying to do anything about it? Then ask yourself what happens if try to do something about it?

In the first instance, the results would be catastrophic for earth. In the second instance, we would be able to lessen the damage and make the world a better, more comfortable place, encouraging business and keeping certain places on earth viable for habitat. Fewer hurricanes and blizzards, fewer scorching hot places that weren't scorching hot before, less death, less destruction.
 
JumpinJack said:
In the first instance, the results would be catastrophic for earth. In the second instance, we would be able to lessen the damage and make the world a better, more comfortable place, encouraging business and keeping certain places on earth viable for habitat.
Click to expand...

They might be catastrophic, maybe. As in, something like a 1% probability of ECS being higher than 5 degrees. At the more likely ECS values of 2.5 to 3 degrees, 'catastrophic' becomes a more subjective term: Things might actually be nicer for folk in Canada and Sweden, depending on how successfully borders and international peace are maintained against refugees and unrest from the less fortunate parts of the world. Higher exposures to disease, extreme weather events, drought, flooding and potentially food scarcity are issues of concern, but from what I've read each variable is 'only' likely to affect numbers in the range of tens of millions to a couple of billion people each. Gotham will endure.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
What F.ing trouble?????????

Serriously can you answer what it is you think is going to happen?

And do you think the present use of fuel as food, increasing the price of basic foods by 30 to 70% and thus causing vast hunger in th epoor world, is worth it???
Click to expand...

Phys251 said:
So you would choose filthy water, dirty air, and an overall worse quality of life in that 50/50 scenario?
Click to expand...

Try to answer the question. What trouble do you think is going to happen?[3]

Also what are you talking about? How is the water going to become dirty?
 
Phys251 said:
OK, let's try this one more time: The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is orders of magnitude more than that of an H2O molecule. If you cannot accept this basic fact, then you are in zero understanding to try to lecture me about basic science.
Click to expand...
I understand that but, as has been pointed out to you by others as well as me that is not the point.

There is much more water in the atmsophere than CO2. Water has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
 
JumpinJack said:
Why are you against a clean environment and a balanced climate? That is baffling.

It exists. Science is very clear on that. There is no question...it's settled science in the same way that the earth being round is settled science.

Ask yourself this question: What happens if we proceed in denying global warming and not trying to do anything about it? Then ask yourself what happens if try to do something about it?

In the first instance, the results would be catastrophic for earth. In the second instance, we would be able to lessen the damage and make the world a better, more comfortable place, encouraging business and keeping certain places on earth viable for habitat. Fewer hurricanes and blizzards, fewer scorching hot places that weren't scorching hot before, less death, less destruction.
Click to expand...

What would be so bad? What event do you see as catastrophic?

I keep asking the same question and not get any reply. Why?
 
fmw said:
Weak argument. You could make it about any disaster. Nothing wrong with clean air and clean water. We all want that.
Click to expand...

Which is why Donald and the Republicans are going to keep the EPA intact so that rivers don't literally catch on fire, groundwater doesn't become poisoned, and the air doesn't become literally unbreatheable. Oh, wait a minute...

The huge majority of us have that now. Energy companies that pass their losses on to the public are all renewable energy companies.
Click to expand...

That is a lie. Every time hydraulic fracturing triggers another earthquake, or a coal power plant releases arsenic and mercury into the atmosphere (which those "controversial" guidelines by Obama were meant to prevent), or an oil company takes Native Americans' land from them, or a coal company literally removes an entire mountaintop, they are passing on their costs to the public.

That kind of energy is too expensive in the face of traditional alternatives. When that changes so will the face of energy without you or the government lifting a finger.
Click to expand...

Another lie paid for by Big Oil and Big Coal.

Renewables more affordable? The price of solar is declining to unprecedented lows - Salon.com

IRENA | REmap
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

Try to answer the question. What trouble do you think is going to happen?[3]

Also what are you talking about? How is the water going to become dirty?
Click to expand...

Phys251 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River#Environmental_concerns

The 50 Most Polluted Rivers in the Country | EWG

Just a couple of sources to get you started.
Click to expand...

Fail. Fail to answer the question. Fail for this to have anything to do with global warming.

Yes river water quality needs to be secured through legislationand regulation with an active governmental policing of such laws.

Now can you actually answer the question of what you think is going to happen due to increased CO2? [4]
 
JumpinJack said:
Why are you against a clean environment and a balanced climate? That is baffling.

It exists. Science is very clear on that. There is no question...it's settled science in the same way that the earth being round is settled science.

Ask yourself this question: What happens if we proceed in denying global warming and not trying to do anything about it? Then ask yourself what happens if try to do something about it?

In the first instance, the results would be catastrophic for earth. In the second instance, we would be able to lessen the damage and make the world a better, more comfortable place, encouraging business and keeping certain places on earth viable for habitat. Fewer hurricanes and blizzards, fewer scorching hot places that weren't scorching hot before, less death, less destruction.
Click to expand...

A clean environment has nothing to do with AGW advocacy.
 
Phys251 said:
And that water vapor falls right out of the atmosphere days after it entered it. I'm pretty sure we are in agreement on this fact.
Click to expand...

Yes we agree on that and you are pretending that it makes some sort of difference. Residence time is a red herring.
Exactly what effect do you think short residence time has on the greenhouse effect with respect to water vapor?
 
Phys251 said:
OK, let's try this one more time: The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is orders of magnitude more than that of an H2O molecule. If you cannot accept this basic fact, then you are in zero understanding to try to lecture me about basic science.
Click to expand...

The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is orders of magnitude more than that of an H2O molecule.

SO WHAT?
 
Phys251 said:
OK, let's try this one more time: The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is orders of magnitude more than that of an H2O molecule. If you cannot accept this basic fact, then you are in zero understanding to try to lecture me about basic science.
Click to expand...

The only bearing in science that these numbers have is for an unusual pulse. Lets assume a meteor large enough strikes the ocean and puts an unusual amount of water in the atmosphere. It might take 40 days and 40 nights before it's done raining from that event, but in a matter of weeks, the atmosphere will be back to normal fluctuations, dictated by sea surface temperatures, winds, and atmospheric temperatures.

The short "lifetime" of H2O simply doesn't matter over the normal events of time. What matters is the average water the atmosphere has.

Please stop thinking you understand these things. It is obvious you are clueless of such scientific matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom