• 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!

No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument

VanCleef said:
That's too bad. Do you at least have a massive amount of peer reviewed studies specifically stating AGW is false?
Click to expand...
Do you have a single peer reviewed study showing that CO2 actually functions as claimed in the atmosphere all the time?
 
longview said:
Please point to the peer reviewed study that validates the predicted effects of added CO2?
Just one would do it!
Click to expand...

Sure!

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Each contains dozens specifically for CO2. Here are some examples,

Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions | PNAS
ACP - Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis
Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C | Nature Geoscience
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/full-report/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/

I can keep going.

See Chapter 2, search for CO2: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/ Each statement has linked peer reviewed studies as well.
 
VanCleef said:
That's too bad. Do you at least have a massive amount of peer reviewed studies specifically stating AGW is false?
Click to expand...

No. I use simple logic. Seems this is the argument of the book smarts - you VS. street smarts - me.
 
cabse5 said:
book smarts - you VS. street smarts - me.
Click to expand...

Book smarts vs streetsmarts.

Just what you want in a scientific "debate"!
 
cabse5 said:
I understood clean fuels to be the least carbon emitting. The criteria of carbon emission has nothing to do with clean fuels? I see garbage trucks trundle around my neighborhood that have the slogan green and powered by liquified natural gas on their sides. Does the garbage truck no longer run on green energy when it gets into an accident?
Click to expand...

You asked why nuclear energy is not considered "green". Until the problem of radioactive waste storage is solved we will not be building more nuclear plants. Nuclear waste is potentially more harmful than fossil fuel. Natural gas is the least carbon polluting of the fossil fuels and it is cheap and abundant. You hate it because?
 
VanCleef said:
Book smarts vs streetsmarts.

Just what you want in a scientific "debate"!
Click to expand...
It's simple. I don't see the need of delving into all the claims and research of environmentalists who don't use logic.
 
iguanaman said:
You asked why nuclear energy is not considered "green". Until the problem of radioactive waste storage is solved we will not be building more nuclear plants. Nuclear waste is potentially more harmful than fossil fuel. Natural gas is the least carbon polluting of the fossil fuels and it is cheap and abundant. You hate it because?
Click to expand...

Nuclear waste has more of a potential of creating accelerating climate change?

EDIT: You realize a nuclear blast to activate some volcano would cool the earth for at least a decade?
 
cabse5 said:
who don't use logic.
Click to expand...

If there is no logic you can surely deep dive into the studies I just linked and prove what was wrong.
 
longview said:
We can make hydrocarbon fuels which are 100% carbon neutral,
Gasoline, Diesel, Jet fuel, whatever is in demand.
At this point the product would not be as cheap as the fuels made from oil, but the curves are in motion.
As technology improves, and surplus energy in the form of electricity get cheaper (Duck Curve),
there will come a point when man made fuel is the least expensive pump selection.
The Naval Research Labs did find one idiosyncrasy, the process seem to only make high octane fuels, no regular!
Click to expand...

Pumping free energy out of the ground is not likely to become more expensive than producing the energy from scratch and converting it to fuel. Why you expect that to be the solution is beyond me. The losses associated with conversions of energy are extensive. Powering cars, trucks and trains DIRECTLY with electric energy does not have the losses that making liquid fuel from electricity and then burning it does. It might be the answer for aircraft but that is it.
 
Last edited:
VanCleef said:
If there is no logic you can surely deep dive into the studies I just linked and prove what was wrong.
Click to expand...

Environmentalist only wish to restrict less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases (CO2 (and Methane))...That simple logic.
 
cabse5 said:
Nuclear waste has more of a potential of creating accelerating climate change?

EDIT: You realize a nuclear blast to activate some volcano would cool the earth for at least a decade?
Click to expand...

Radioactive pollution has the potential to end life on this planet. It's strange that you don't know that.
 
iguanaman said:
Radioactive pollution has the potential to end life on this planet. It's strange that you don't know that.
Click to expand...

Is radioactive pollution as bad as climate change?
 
iguanaman said:
Radioactive pollution has the potential to end life on this planet. It's strange that you don't know that.
Click to expand...

No great potential for extinction if the blast takes place high in the atmosphere which is where it would happen.
 
cabse5 said:
No great potential for extinction if the blast takes place high in the atmosphere which is where it would happen.
Click to expand...

I'm am not talking bombs. More like killing the oceans with radioactivity. That's where most of our oxygen comes from.
 
iguanaman said:
I'm am not talking bombs. More like killing the oceans with radioactivity. That's where most of our oxygen comes from.
Click to expand...

Reducing CO2 in the atmosphere would kill vegetation. Green things would turn grey. Green energy is a misnomer. It should be grey energy.
 
VanCleef said:
Sure!

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Each contains dozens specifically for CO2. Here are some examples,

Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions | PNAS
ACP - Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis
Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C | Nature Geoscience
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/full-report/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/

I can keep going.

See Chapter 2, search for CO2: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/ Each statement has linked peer reviewed studies as well.
Click to expand...

I am guessing you did not read these!
The Fourth National Climate Assessment is a joke, in that they use RCP8.5 as an upper limit, RCP 8.5 is not possible.
The PNAS paper is a what if paper starting with the assumption that CO2 sensitivity is already proven,
note that this model has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.2 °C for carbon dioxide doubling).
Click to expand...
ACP is a model (says it right in the title) "a multi-model analysis"
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/
This one is interesting but attributes 40% of the observed forcing to changes in land use.
Given these projected trends there is a need to understand the global climate impacts of land use and land cover change (LULCC).
With all forcing agents considered together, we show that 40% (±16%) of the present-day anthropogenic RF can be attributed to LULCC.
Click to expand...
IPCC AR5 does not actually validate the predicted effects of added CO2, if you think it does you need to cite the paragraph.
This paper,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949
can be invalidated by the data alone,
The statement
"For example, the CO2‐induced enhancement in the zonal surface temperature for 80°–90°N is more than 3 times as great in the summer as in the winter."
Click to expand...
Is almost the complete opposite from the observations.
What you have here is your failure to understand that no one has actually validated that CO2 preforms as advertised.
The simple fact that the forcing imbalance estimate has been steadily declining for almost 20 years, and the observed data shows it is
lower than current estimates.
 
longview said:
I am guessing you did not read these!
The Fourth National Climate Assessment is a joke, in that they use RCP8.5 as an upper limit, RCP 8.5 is not possible.
The PNAS paper is a what if paper starting with the assumption that CO2 sensitivity is already proven,

ACP is a model (says it right in the title) "a multi-model analysis"
ACP - Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change
This one is interesting but attributes 40% of the observed forcing to changes in land use.

IPCC AR5 does not actually validate the predicted effects of added CO2, if you think it does you need to cite the paragraph.
This paper,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949
can be invalidated by the data alone,
The statement

Is almost the complete opposite from the observations.
What you have here is your failure to understand that no one has actually validated that CO2 preforms as advertised.
The simple fact that the forcing imbalance estimate has been steadily declining for almost 20 years, and the observed data shows it is
lower than current estimates.
Click to expand...

I read them all. It doesn't matter that in your opinion they are a joke.

You just wrote your opinion and arm-chair theory, as you've been doing this entire thread. Nothing you've linked shows how any of the reports or studies I've linked are false or inaccurate in accordance to the report. You literally just re-linked the links I gave and told me why you think they are invalid.


Please refute the studies I linked or the CO2 Chapter from those 2 reports. Directly, with peer reviewed studies of your own.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Pumping free energy out of the ground is not likely to become more expensive than producing the energy from scratch and converting it to fuel. Why you expect that to be the solution is beyond me. The losses associated with conversions of energy are extensive. Powering cars, trucks and trains DIRECTLY with electric energy does not have the losses that making liquid fuel from electricity and then burning it does. It might be the answer for aircraft but that is it.
Click to expand...
It is not free to find, extract and transport oil to the refinery, it has a very real and quantifiable cost.
that is what making fuel from scratch will be compared to.
As to efficiency, what is in demand? and what is the best energy density of batteries so far?
 
VanCleef said:
I read them all. It doesn't matter that in your opinion they are a joke.

You just wrote your opinion and arm-chair theory, as you've been doing this entire thread. Nothing you've linked shows how any of the reports or studies I've linked are false or inaccurate in accordance to the report. You literally just re-linked the links I gave and told me why you think they are invalid.


Please refute the studies I linked or the CO2 Chapter from those 2 reports. Directly, with peer reviewed studies of your own.
Click to expand...

You still have not cited a peer reviewed study that validates that the effects of added CO2 are as claimed!
 
longview said:
You still have not cited a peer reviewed study that validates that the effects of added CO2 are as claimed!
Click to expand...

I have cited two comprehensive reports (Chapter 2) and by proxy dozens of peer reviewed studies (and a sample of) showing for a fact CO2 increases the effects of Global Warming ( duhhrr Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet), and some of that is clearly man made (AGW).

You have yet to refute this fact with a peer reviewed source of any type.
The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the
amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally. Without major reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature relative to preindustrial times
could reach 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century. With significant reductions in emissions, the
increase in annual average global temperature could be limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less.
The global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2
) concentration has now passed 400 parts per million
(ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today. Continued growth in CO2 emissions over this
century and beyond would lead to an atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens to hundreds
of millions of years. There is broad consensus that the further and the faster the Earth system is pushed
towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some of which are potentially large and irreversible.
The observed increase in carbon emissions over the past 15–20 years has been consistent with higher
emissions pathways. In 2014 and 2015, emission growth rates slowed as economic growth became
less carbon-intensive. Even if this slowing trend continues, however, it is not yet at a rate that would
limit global average temperature change to well below 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels.
Click to expand...
 
cabse5 said:
Reducing CO2 in the atmosphere would kill vegetation. Green things would turn grey. Green energy is a misnomer. It should be grey energy.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about reducing CO2? We just want to slow the increase. It will take millions of years for the Earth to reduce we have already released.
 
gfm7175 said:
Polls are meaningless.

Atheism is also a religion.
Click to expand...

Stopped reading right there. Atheism is as much of a religion as "bald" is a hair color.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom