• 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!

Texan Hubris and Climate Change Denial

Lord of Planar said:
CO2 is less than 7% (32 / 494) of the total radiative forcing and around 9% at best of the total greenhouse effect. That increase, which is actually around 42% now, accounts for around 1.8 W/m^2, which is only about a 0.36% increase of the greenhouse effect.

Now if we go from a total forcing of 492 W/m^2 to 494 W/m^2:

(494^0.25) / (492^0.25) = 1.001

288 x 1.001 = 288.288

So the direct increase of CO2 forcing if the IPCC AR5 is correct at 1.81 W/m^2 is less than a 0.3 degree increase. They claim around 0.9 degrees, which of course has their magical positive only feedback of H2O.
Click to expand...

You better set those IPCC and the National Academy of Science straight. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of your mathematical regurgitation.

If you want to be taken seriously, declare all your variables and all of your assumptions. Show the source of all your formulas. Simply copying this garbage from your Right Wing fossil fuel industry site means nothing.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except the chart is just a graphic representation of the science we know to be true surrounding CO2 and global temperature.

Since you seem not to be aware of that, you might want to read more and speculate less.
Click to expand...

The chart is a graphic representation of numbers. The numbers are presented as evidence. They are not evidence of anything other than temperature trends and CO2 trends over time. I don't even have much confidence in the trends, let alone the inference made from the chart.
 
FederalRepublic said:
The chart is a graphic representation of numbers. The numbers are presented as evidence. They are not evidence of anything other than temperature trends and CO2 trends over time. I don't even have much confidence in the trends, let alone the inference made from the chart.
Click to expand...

You may find this chart more persuasive.

Think of where you might fall on the line.

c14b36b8168761b71f1cd4b472821e07.png
 
Threegoofs said:
You may find this chart more persuasive.

Think of where you might fall on the line.

c14b36b8168761b71f1cd4b472821e07.png
Click to expand...


Interesting data you've posted there. You're sketching skills are outstanding here:

manbearpig.jpg
 

Attachments

  • manbearpig.jpg
    manbearpig.jpg
    19.3 KB · Views: 12
Media_Truth said:
You better set those IPCC and the National Academy of Science straight. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of your mathematical regurgitation.

If you want to be taken seriously, declare all your variables and all of your assumptions. Show the source of all your formulas. Simply copying this garbage from your Right Wing fossil fuel industry site means nothing.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me what is wrong about my math.

I suggest that once again, the pundits are lying to you.

Oh...

I didn't say the 0.3 degrees was TCS or ECS, now did I?

Please, I'm all ears. Tell me what I did wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom