• 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!

Former climate sceptic Jerry Taylor advocates rapid decarbonisation

So only those that profess an opinion should be counted?

Nope. Wrong. I go with the majority who have not expressed an opinion. Why? Because climate is complex, has many variables in it, and not everything is understood. Those uncertainties alone, plus the inherent unreliability of climate modeling, is more than enough for me to be skeptical of the effects of AGW and of the doomsayer predictions with regards to it.

You clearly haven't understood my post. Not expressing an opinion isn't the same as not having an opinion! I've written a few academic papers myself, and I didn't express an opinion on AGW in any of them. Why? Because my opinion on AGW wasn't relevant to the topic of the paper, not because I don't have an opinion on AGW! That's why it would be wrong to count the papers that don't profess an opinion.
 
You clearly haven't understood my post. Not expressing an opinion isn't the same as not having an opinion! I've written a few academic papers myself, and I didn't express an opinion on AGW in any of them. Why? Because my opinion on AGW wasn't relevant to the topic of the paper, not because I don't have an opinion on AGW! That's why it would be wrong to count the papers that don't profess an opinion.
The question is not if you expressed an opinion about AGW in any paper you have written, but if you expressed an opinion
on the topic of the paper in the abstract, In Cooks study, he only counted papers who expressed a topic related opinion
in the abstract which was all his team was reviewing.
 
You clearly haven't understood my post. Not expressing an opinion isn't the same as not having an opinion! I've written a few academic papers myself, and I didn't express an opinion on AGW in any of them. Why? Because my opinion on AGW wasn't relevant to the topic of the paper, not because I don't have an opinion on AGW! That's why it would be wrong to count the papers that don't profess an opinion.

Wrong. You yourself made the claim that there is an overwhelming consensus when the fact is the overwhelming consensus refused to answer the question. That is the point here.
 
Jerry Taylor, one-time climate sceptic and former Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, explains in The Guardian why he now believes that we should decarbonise the economy as rapidly as possible.

Conservatives should change how they think about global warming. I did

"It took time for me to come to the realization that uncertainty is an argument for – not against – decarbonizing the economy as quickly as possible. Never before have we run an experiment where greenhouse gases were loaded into the atmosphere at today’s rates. While we don’t know precisely what will follow, we understand basic physics well enough to know that “warming is coming”. How much, and how dangerous it will be, is an open question, but we have no backup planet if the answer is a bad one."

That's one right-winger who has finally grasped that "proof" of AGW is not a prerequisite for preventative action! I wonder how long it'll take the others?

So another deranged person is claiming that they have no idea what is happening or why or how it is happening, but that we need to destroy our civilization to do something that may or may not have any connection to anything.

The derangement is real, but the causes and solutions are not.
 
Geepers how many climate change / global warming threads are there.

First off let me say most people are completely mistaken as to what climate change really is. And I really don't have the time or the inclination to make a huge post educating anyone, so in the most simplistic of terms:

Ice core samples have shown that approximately every 150,000 years the Earth peaks then cools. Then peaks, then cools. And so forth.

The Earth is not getting hotter.

It's peaked.

The temperature is not increasing it's just not getting cooler. Think of it like an ice cube slowing melting at room temperature rather than in an oven.

The problem is we should be in the cooling trend. We are not, we are still peaking.

This clearly is caused by the rapid increase in population and manufacturing.

How long we stay peaking will determine things like glacier melting ( see ice cube above ).

The next ice age is not "due" for another 6 thousand or so years.

What makes you think it is supposed to arrive sooner than that?
 
Wrong. You yourself made the claim that there is an overwhelming consensus when the fact is the overwhelming consensus refused to answer the question. That is the point here.

That makes no sense at all. How can a consensus refuse to answer a question? Who, exactly, are you claiming has refused to answer what question?
 
That makes no sense at all. How can a consensus refuse to answer a question? Who, exactly, are you claiming has refused to answer what question?

Read post #20 and keep reading it until you understand.
 
The next ice age is not "due" for another 6 thousand or so years.

What makes you think it is supposed to arrive sooner than that?

I don't believe I said anything about an Ice Age. And peaking and cooling trends again does not imply an Ice Age either.
 
On the bolded is something that the GOP fights against every day. The GOP and the right doesn't want to support items that will help solve our energy problems.

Energy problems are only problems when there is none.

When a superior fuel is available that is cheaper, more portable and more powerful than fossil fuels, it will be embraced by all because it will make sense to do so.

Fossil fuel use was not and is not mandated by draconian governmental programs. It makes sense to use them. They are the cheapest, most powerful, most portable fuels ever used by man.

The population explosion and the spectacular creation of wealth since the implementation of fossil fuels use are both direct outcomes of the use of fossil.

Similarly, the increase of CO2 emissions is a direct outcome.

The rise of the global temperatures FROM THE COLDEST POINT OF THE HOLOCENE INTERGLACIAL UNTIL TODAY is a concurrent event, but not there does not seem to be a demonstrable causal link.
 
Energy problems are only problems when there is none.

When a superior fuel is available that is cheaper, more portable and more powerful than fossil fuels, it will be embraced by all because it will make sense to do so.

Fossil fuel use was not and is not mandated by draconian governmental programs. It makes sense to use them. They are the cheapest, most powerful, most portable fuels ever used by man.

The population explosion and the spectacular creation of wealth since the implementation of fossil fuels use are both direct outcomes of the use of fossil.

Similarly, the increase of CO2 emissions is a direct outcome.

The rise of the global temperatures FROM THE COLDEST POINT OF THE HOLOCENE INTERGLACIAL UNTIL TODAY is a concurrent event, but not there does not seem to be a demonstrable causal link.

There is a very, very obvious causal link: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and, as such, keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. The more CO2, the warmer the Earth. It is quite extraordinary that you are seemingly not aware of this!
 
There is a very, very obvious causal link: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and, as such, keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. The more CO2, the warmer the Earth. It is quite extraordinary that you are seemingly not aware of this!
Except that even CO2's greenhouse effect cannot be validated in a lab experiment.
Even a 100 meter tube of CO2 if exposed to 15 um photons would absorb the first few billion photons,
but would quickly saturate. The energy coming out the other end of the tube would drop for the first few milliseconds,
and then increase to most of it's pre CO2 state.
The limiting factor would be how fast the walls of the tube could dissipate the heat an allow the CO2 to go back to ground state.
CO2 does appear to contribute to our planet being warmer than if it contained no greenhouse gasses,
but of the predicted 33 C warmer, CO2 actual contribution is very subjective.
 
Except that even CO2's greenhouse effect cannot be validated in a lab experiment.
Even a 100 meter tube of CO2 if exposed to 15 um photons would absorb the first few billion photons,
but would quickly saturate. The energy coming out the other end of the tube would drop for the first few milliseconds,
and then increase to most of it's pre CO2 state.
The limiting factor would be how fast the walls of the tube could dissipate the heat an allow the CO2 to go back to ground state.
CO2 does appear to contribute to our planet being warmer than if it contained no greenhouse gasses,
but of the predicted 33 C warmer, CO2 actual contribution is very subjective.

Why do you keep spouting this utter bull****? There are many papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties, starting with Tyndall's 1861 paper. The CO2 molecules in gas at atmospheric pressure are in an excited state for just a brief period before losing their energy, usually through collisions and occasionally by emitting a photon. The net result of this is that the IR entering the tube from one end is dissipated in all directions, some of it back the way it came. Hence the greenhouse effect.
 
There is a very, very obvious causal link: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and, as such, keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. The more CO2, the warmer the Earth. It is quite extraordinary that you are seemingly not aware of this!

I am aware of this. As the concentration of CO2 increases, the incremental warming effect decreases. The first 20 ppm has an incredibly dramatic global impact. Every 20 ppm incremental increase after that decreases.

It is true that any addition will have some impact, but the incremental impact of 20 ppm today is just about unnoticeable. Every molecule of CO2 does prevent some heat from escaping into space.

Climate experts compare this to painting a window to keep light from escaping out of a room. The first coat of paint had a pretty dramatic effect.

Every succeeding coat of paint has a vastly reduced impact. Incremental increases at this point really have a very diminished impact.

Before the amount of CO2 has risen to the point at which we are "cooked", we will have asphyxiated. You can relax. ;)

The Diminishing Effect of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on Temperature | edmhdotme

<snip>

[FONT=&quot]The logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and Climate Alarmists. It is nonetheless well understood within the climate science community. But the effect is not much discussed nor ever emphasised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An illustration of the CO2 diminution effect with increasing concentrations, can be imagined as if one was painting over a window with successive layers of white paint. The first layer will still be translucent, subsequent layers will progressively reduce the translucency until the window is fully obscured and thereafter further paint layers can make no further difference to the fact that the window is already fully obscured.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Similarly extra concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have ever diminishing effects on temperature, until at about 1000 ppmv they become totally negligible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
screen-shot-2016-05-20-at-17-36-03.png

The logarithmic diminution effect is the likely reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousand parts per million by volume, (ppmv).

<snip>[/FONT]
 
I don't believe I said anything about an Ice Age. And peaking and cooling trends again does not imply an Ice Age either.

So, then, you are observing, more or less, normal climate variations are going on today. I have observed the same thing.

We are cooler than about 8000 years ago, about the same as 5000 years ago and warmer than 2000 years ago.

One of my favorite spaghetti looking graphs shows various proxy tracks of data across the Holocene.

Various versions are a tad propagandistic to create an intended impression. They are what they are.

The proxies indicate that various global locations were warmer than today even with with CO2 concentrations that were extremely lower before the widespread use of Fossil Fuels.

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia

<snip>


Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is only seen in the inset.

<snip>

The same graph is shown in the link below with another add-on to create an opposing view conclusion. More propaganda, but that is what Climate Science in its intent has become.

Holocene - History of Earth's Climate


 
I am aware of this. As the concentration of CO2 increases, the incremental warming effect decreases. The first 20 ppm has an incredibly dramatic global impact. Every 20 ppm incremental increase after that decreases.

It is true that any addition will have some impact, but the incremental impact of 20 ppm today is just about unnoticeable. Every molecule of CO2 does prevent some heat from escaping into space.

Climate experts compare this to painting a window to keep light from escaping out of a room. The first coat of paint had a pretty dramatic effect.

Every succeeding coat of paint has a vastly reduced impact. Incremental increases at this point really have a very diminished impact.

Before the amount of CO2 has risen to the point at which we are "cooked", we will have asphyxiated. You can relax. ;)

The Diminishing Effect of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on Temperature | edmhdotme

<snip>

[FONT=&quot]The logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and Climate Alarmists. It is nonetheless well understood within the climate science community. But the effect is not much discussed nor ever emphasised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An illustration of the CO2 diminution effect with increasing concentrations, can be imagined as if one was painting over a window with successive layers of white paint. The first layer will still be translucent, subsequent layers will progressively reduce the translucency until the window is fully obscured and thereafter further paint layers can make no further difference to the fact that the window is already fully obscured.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Similarly extra concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have ever diminishing effects on temperature, until at about 1000 ppmv they become totally negligible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
screen-shot-2016-05-20-at-17-36-03.png

The logarithmic diminution effect is the likely reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousand parts per million by volume, (ppmv).

<snip>[/FONT]

Sorry, but your graph comes from a climate denial blog by someone who clearly isn't a climate expert :lamo

No actual climate expert compares the greenhouse effect to painting a window to keep light from escaping out of a room because the analogy is wrong. Enough coats of paint will stop virtually all the light escaping from a room, but no amount of CO2 can stop the IR escaping from the Earth. The Earth has to emit the same amount of radiation that it receives from the sun in order to maintain the same temperature. If you add more CO2, the temperature has to rise in order to maintain the same net emission of IR.

Having said that, it is indeed true that the effect on the Earth's temperature of adding CO2 diminishes approximately logarithmically at its current concentration, but doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, for example, will still lead to a potentially catastrophic temperature rise of around 3 C.

I suggest you refer to material written by actual scientists if you really want to understand the issue.
 
Sorry, but your graph comes from a climate denial blog by someone who clearly isn't a climate expert :lamo

No actual climate expert compares the greenhouse effect to painting a window to keep light from escaping out of a room because the analogy is wrong. Enough coats of paint will stop virtually all the light escaping from a room, but no amount of CO2 can stop the IR escaping from the Earth. The Earth has to emit the same amount of radiation that it receives from the sun in order to maintain the same temperature. If you add more CO2, the temperature has to rise in order to maintain the same net emission of IR.

Having said that, it is indeed true that the effect on the Earth's temperature of adding CO2 diminishes approximately logarithmically at its current concentration, but doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, for example, will still lead to a potentially catastrophic temperature rise of around 3 C.

I suggest you refer to material written by actual scientists if you really want to understand the issue.

I suggest you post a link to the impact of CO2 and the diminishing effect that also includes incremental impact the you erroneously believe to exist.

I'll await your post that contains anything related to the real world.
 
I suggest you post a link to the impact of CO2 and the diminishing effect that also includes incremental impact the you erroneously believe to exist.

I'll await your post that contains anything related to the real world.

I've no idea what you're talking about. What "incremental impact" do you suppose I believe to exist?

It's common knowledge that the Earth's temperature will increase approximately logarithmically with CO2 concentration, and it is reckoned that each doubling of CO2 is likely to lead to somewhere between 1.5 C an 4.5 C of warming. This is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

Edit: This link explains it quite well: Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’
 
Last edited:
Why do you keep spouting this utter bull****? There are many papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties, starting with Tyndall's 1861 paper. The CO2 molecules in gas at atmospheric pressure are in an excited state for just a brief period before losing their energy, usually through collisions and occasionally by emitting a photon. The net result of this is that the IR entering the tube from one end is dissipated in all directions, some of it back the way it came. Hence the greenhouse effect.

A fun list, but the descriptions do not cover what you suggest it does.
John Tyndall's paper is a profound work of logic, but shows that CO2 does indeed absorb in the infrared.
Many of the other papers are related to the near IR, remember that 15 um is like 667 cm-1,
so papers saying they looked at spectra between 4300 to 7000 cm−1, are much shorter wavelengths.
Also none of the papers I have looked at so far, actually measured what you claimed, but gasses that absorb IR, will become excited.
It is what happens after the gasses are excited is the real question.
For example how much is the level of 15 um source diminished, by a length of CO2,
and is that reduction constant, or does it have an initial and then steady state?
Would the initial state be long enough to detect?
One of the things we do know is that a CO2 molecule not at ground state, is very unlikely to absorb any 15 um photons.
 
Jerry Taylor, one-time climate sceptic and former Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, explains in The Guardian why he now believes that we should decarbonise the economy as rapidly as possible.

Conservatives should change how they think about global warming. I did

"It took time for me to come to the realization that uncertainty is an argument for – not against – decarbonizing the economy as quickly as possible. Never before have we run an experiment where greenhouse gases were loaded into the atmosphere at today’s rates. While we don’t know precisely what will follow, we understand basic physics well enough to know that “warming is coming”. How much, and how dangerous it will be, is an open question, but we have no backup planet if the answer is a bad one."

That's one right-winger who has finally grasped that "proof" of AGW is not a prerequisite for preventative action! I wonder how long it'll take the others?

Rapid decarbonization to reduce climate change would be like filling 5% of all the holes in a sinking row boat since CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Additionally, 'scientists' rely on the unproven theory of AGW climate change - that man is the main or only causer of climate change.

I deduce a 'scientific' involvement in politics.
 
Last edited:
A fun list, but the descriptions do not cover what you suggest it does.
John Tyndall's paper is a profound work of logic, but shows that CO2 does indeed absorb in the infrared.
Many of the other papers are related to the near IR, remember that 15 um is like 667 cm-1,
so papers saying they looked at spectra between 4300 to 7000 cm−1, are much shorter wavelengths.
Also none of the papers I have looked at so far, actually measured what you claimed, but gasses that absorb IR, will become excited.
It is what happens after the gasses are excited is the real question.
For example how much is the level of 15 um source diminished, by a length of CO2,
and is that reduction constant, or does it have an initial and then steady state?
Would the initial state be long enough to detect?
One of the things we do know is that a CO2 molecule not at ground state, is very unlikely to absorb any 15 um photons.

Very few of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are in a vibrational excited state at any given moment because almost all the molecules that are excited by an IR photon almost immediately give up their excitational energy in collisions with other molecules. Their excitational energy is converted to thermal energy of the gas.
 
Very few of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are in a vibrational excited state at any given moment because almost all the molecules that are excited by an IR photon almost immediately give up their excitational energy in collisions with other molecules. Their excitational energy is converted to thermal energy of the gas.
Yes and no, Collision transfer of energy still have to be with a molecule or atom capable of absorbing the energy state transition.
H2O has some good possibilities, but Nitrogen, and Oxygen do not do much between 667 cm-1 and ground state.
Sunlight excited nitrogen, can however pass a 2335 cm-1 state to CO2, but that just means CO2 is excited more often.
Again, CO2 not at ground state has a much lower chance of absorbing a 667 cm-1 photon, it is nearly transparent to that wavelength.
(I only say nearly, because there is a second energy level at 2X667 cm-1, so it is possible that is 2 in phase photons strike
the molecule in such a way as to stack the energy levels, it is rare but can happen.)
 
Rapid decarbonization to reduce climate change would be like filling 5% of all the holes in a sinking row boat since CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Additionally, 'scientists' rely on the unproven theory of AGW climate change - that man is the main or only causer of climate change.

I deduce a 'scientific' involvement in politics.

Greenhouse gases are the number ONE driver of Climate Change. Deniers like to discount this, using propaganda from the fossil fuel industry, but it is fact - plain and unequivocal, and supported by the most foremost scientists in the world.

AR5 Radiative forcing_Fig8.15_Pg697.JPG
 
Greenhouse gases are the number ONE driver of Climate Change. Deniers like to discount this, using propaganda from the fossil fuel industry, but it is fact - plain and unequivocal, and supported by the most foremost scientists in the world.

View attachment 67258077

You talk about deniers. Let’s talk about believers. How many believers actually do something about it. Do you walk? Ride a bike? Do you fly in airplanes, run you ac? Do you est meat? What do you do about climate change?
 
Greenhouse gases are the number ONE driver of Climate Change. Deniers like to discount this, using propaganda from the fossil fuel industry, but it is fact - plain and unequivocal, and supported by the most foremost scientists in the world.
A recent survey of climate scientist does not quite imply the same level of certainty.
(PDF) The Bray-and-von Storch Surveys on the perceptions of climate scientists, 2015/2016, #5, Report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu
One of the few high numbers is an answer to the question,
How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?
with the high peak in the 7 , very much category.
The next question, about climate models, is much less certain.
Climate models accurately simulate the climatic conditions for which they are calibrated.
With 69% of the respondents in the middle 3-5 range between,
strongly disagree and strongly agree.
Only 9% said models had a very good chance, of simulating the global mean temperature for the next 50 years.
Figure 18. (v012d) How would you rate the ability of global climate models to simulate a global mean value for temperature values for the
next 50 years?
 
Back
Top Bottom