• 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 Evidence for Significant Warming for 170 Years

That you have shown a place that will experience costs of more than it's traffic lights cost due to global warming? You have obviously failed to show that. Miami beach, the city built on a reef/sand bar has 12 feet or more sea defenses which it is renewing with an extra 4 inches on top. The numbers thus don't make the extra cost more than the traffic lights.

Damn Tim... how many times do I have to correct you before you quit?

First of all, just because there is a 12-foot tall wing dike on the very southeast point of the island doesn't mean the sea wall defences are 12 feet tall all the way around the island. Anyone who has been there or can honestly use Google Earth can see this.

And secondly, the cost was half a billion dollars to raise both the sea wall defenses AND THE ROADS 2 FEET. Just because you came up with some convoluted and dishonest reason to call it 4 inches and decided to just pretend that the roads were not part of it does not justify you lying about it.

Sorry Tim, but that half-billion is much more expensive than the traffic light budget. You agreed with me before you decided to move the goalposts by a factor of over 1000. Deal with it!

Tim the plumber said:
Or is it that you think people who live on $2 a day have long happy lives? That they don't die in their 40's mostly?

Or that removing vast amounts of food from the tables of the world causes food prices to rise?

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

I disagree with the lie that 20 million people die every year from this.

Tim the plumber said:
Stop telling me that I lie when it is clearly you who has zero ability to deal with truth.

Stop lying and I'll stop telling you that you lie.
 
Damn Tim... how many times do I have to correct you before you quit?

First of all, just because there is a 12-foot tall wing dike on the very southeast point of the island doesn't mean the sea wall defences are 12 feet tall all the way around the island. Anyone who has been there or can honestly use Google Earth can see this.

Then post a view of these very low sea defenses.

And secondly, the cost was half a billion dollars to raise both the sea wall defenses AND THE ROADS 2 FEET. Just because you came up with some convoluted and dishonest reason to call it 4 inches and decided to just pretend that the roads were not part of it does not justify you lying about it.

The component of sea level rise due to world sea level rise over 30 years is about 4 inches. The component opf that due to AGW is less than 2 inches. By allowing the 4 inch figure I am giving yuou a big advantage.
Sorry Tim, but that half-billion is much more expensive than the traffic light budget. You agreed with me before you decided to move the goalposts by a factor of over 1000. Deal with it!

Half a billion divided by 30 years divided by the proportion that is required to counter AGW rather than the whole lot. Easy to understand.

I disagree with the lie that 20 million people die every year from this.

Then discuss why you think that people who currently have a life expectancy in teh 40's will, if they effectively get a +70% rise in income not expect to live to 60.


Stop lying and I'll stop telling you that you lie.

You constantly lie. You are unable to deal with the real world. Get over yourself.
 
No quarrel with most of what you say. But I assume that we don’t know the scope of future developments in solar, wind, etc., and that some leftist figments may be fulfilled. I have solar panels on my house which not only lower my electric bill, but allow me to contribute energy to others, and got me a handsome tax credit when installed. I assume future generations of panels will be more efficient. I think that subsidies and tax breaks for those industries are probably a good idea, much as we subsidized and still subsidize oil, coal and the nuclear industries.

While solar and wind are alternative sources of energy, they are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. All you are able to do is lower your electric bill, not completely replace it with this alternative energy. It doesn't matter how efficient solar panels become, they are entirely worthless where I live because the sun doesn't shine when the energy is needed most. When we do get lots of sunlight during the Summer months, we don't need the energy nearly as much as when we don't get lots of sunlight during the Winter months.

That is the problem with alternative sources of energy, they never provide for everyone or they make life even worse for everyone. For example, ethanol. Using food for fuel has to be one of the dumbest leftist moves every committed. Tripling the prices of chicken, pork, and beef will not lower fossil fuel consumption, it only results in a poorer nation with higher dependency on government subsidized foods and a population that can no longer afford to feed itself. Ethanol is prohibited in Alaska, but it needs to be banned nationwide.

You have to be careful with nuclear. I think nuclear power is a fine idea, but only in areas that are not prone to earthquakes. Places like Alaska and western California (south of San Francisco) are not good locations for nuclear power. They had a small nuclear power plant at Fort Greely in Alaska, until the 1964 "Good Friday" earthquake. That 9.2 magnitude quake ended up cracking the reactor and the US Army spent the next decade cleaning up the mess.

To be a viable alternative energy source it must be usable by everyone, everywhere on the planet. We can do that with fossil fuels. With wind and solar? Not so much. Which means that there are currently no viable alternative energy sources.
 
While solar and wind are alternative sources of energy, they are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. All you are able to do is lower your electric bill, not completely replace it with this alternative energy. It doesn't matter how efficient solar panels become, they are entirely worthless where I live because the sun doesn't shine when the energy is needed most. When we do get lots of sunlight during the Summer months, we don't need the energy nearly as much as when we don't get lots of sunlight during the Winter months.

That is the problem with alternative sources of energy, they never provide for everyone or they make life even worse for everyone. For example, ethanol. Using food for fuel has to be one of the dumbest leftist moves every committed. Tripling the prices of chicken, pork, and beef will not lower fossil fuel consumption, it only results in a poorer nation with higher dependency on government subsidized foods and a population that can no longer afford to feed itself. Ethanol is prohibited in Alaska, but it needs to be banned nationwide.

You have to be careful with nuclear. I think nuclear power is a fine idea, but only in areas that are not prone to earthquakes. Places like Alaska and western California (south of San Francisco) are not good locations for nuclear power. They had a small nuclear power plant at Fort Greely in Alaska, until the 1964 "Good Friday" earthquake. That 9.2 magnitude quake ended up cracking the reactor and the US Army spent the next decade cleaning up the mess.

To be a viable alternative energy source it must be usable by everyone, everywhere on the planet. We can do that with fossil fuels. With wind and solar? Not so much. Which means that there are currently no viable alternative energy sources.

in about 2011 Germany was working on on an idea to address the solar duty cycle issue.
It involved storing solar from long summer days as man made natural gas for winter heating.
it is a viable idea, up to the point that natural gas prices are currently very low where available.
Methane promising route for storage of renewable energy from sun and wind
The process is not that efficient, but picks up efficiency because direct heating with natural gas is very efficient.
 
in about 2011 Germany was working on on an idea to address the solar duty cycle issue.
It involved storing solar from long summer days as man made natural gas for winter heating.
it is a viable idea, up to the point that natural gas prices are currently very low where available.
Methane promising route for storage of renewable energy from sun and wind
The process is not that efficient, but picks up efficiency because direct heating with natural gas is very efficient.

There are a couple of issues. First, the article you posted considers carbon dioxide to be "environmentally harmful" when the reality is that CO2 is absolutely essential on this planet. All life would cease to exist without it. Second, you don't need solar panels or electricity to convert CO2 to CH4. You just require iron and sunlight. However, as a greenhouse gas methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. So if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this would not be the way to do it.
 
There are a couple of issues. First, the article you posted considers carbon dioxide to be "environmentally harmful" when the reality is that CO2 is absolutely essential on this planet. All life would cease to exist without it. Second, you don't need solar panels or electricity to convert CO2 to CH4. You just require iron and sunlight. However, as a greenhouse gas methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. So if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this would not be the way to do it.

As long as the CH4 isn't released, it turns to CO2 and H2O when burned. This doesn't pose a problem.

To clarify...

Molecule to molecule at current concentration. If CO2 and CH4 were at equal concentrations, CH4 would be around 1/8th as strong molecule to molecule. They are not on linear curves.

CO2 is a stronger greenhouse has by far, than CH4 in equal concentrations. The RE (radiative efficiency) number is just the ratio between slopes of where the gasses are. At current concentrations, the RE of CH4 is about the 21 times figure greater than CO2.
 
There are a couple of issues. First, the article you posted considers carbon dioxide to be "environmentally harmful" when the reality is that CO2 is absolutely essential on this planet. All life would cease to exist without it. Second, you don't need solar panels or electricity to convert CO2 to CH4. You just require iron and sunlight. However, as a greenhouse gas methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. So if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this would not be the way to do it.
I am not concerned with ether CO2 or CH4, but for solar to be effective it's needs the massive seasonal length storage that CH4 could provide.
It would satisfy the alarmist call for reducing CO2 emissions, but does nothing for their call for massive societal reforms.
 
I am not concerned with ether CO2 or CH4, but for solar to be effective it's needs the massive seasonal length storage that CH4 could provide.
It would satisfy the alarmist call for reducing CO2 emissions, but does nothing for their call for massive societal reforms.

People who want to control society will never be happy to have their excuses taken away, and when they are, they will find a different con.
 
I am not concerned with ether CO2 or CH4, but for solar to be effective it's needs the massive seasonal length storage that CH4 could provide.
It would satisfy the alarmist call for reducing CO2 emissions, but does nothing for their call for massive societal reforms.

We already have all the "massive seasonal length storage" that we require. Why create methane when we have an estimated 53.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on Alaska's north slope?

USGS Estimates 53.8 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Hydrate Resources in the Alaska North Slope

It makes more sense to produce and distribute the existing natural gas, than to create something we don't need.
 
...However, as a greenhouse gas methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. So if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this would not be the way to do it.

The Global Warming Potential* of ~21 for methane while a true statistic,
is nevertheless a steaming pile of misdirection - in other words BS.
Methane is almost 2 ppm in the atmosphere and is increasing 6 or 7 ppb
every year. By 2100 it should be about 2.5 ppm.

The important question to ask is "How much is methane going to run up
global temperature by the end of the century?"

You know what Glitch? I bet you can't find an answer to that.


See:
*Appendix 8.A: Lifetimes, Radiative Efficiencies and Metric Values
Chapter 8; Page 731; IPCC AR5 report.
 
We already have all the "massive seasonal length storage" that we require. Why create methane when we have an estimated 53.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on Alaska's north slope?

USGS Estimates 53.8 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Hydrate Resources in the Alaska North Slope

It makes more sense to produce and distribute the existing natural gas, than to create something we don't need.
I agree that the natural stuff is easier, but at some point the supply will run out, I am looking at what happens beyond that.
Also some places cannot easily get natural gas, but may have access to long summer days for solar.
 
I agree that the natural stuff is easier, but at some point the supply will run out, I am looking at what happens beyond that.
Also some places cannot easily get natural gas, but may have access to long summer days for solar.

You are talking centuries into the future before we run out of natural gas. Who knows what technology will be available by then? It would be like Benjamin Franklin trying to imagine the technology available today. It would have been impossible, just as it is impossible to know what our technological development will be like by the year 2250 or beyond. While it makes sense to plan for the future, there is only so much future that one can plan. Anything beyond 10 to 20 years becomes more and more speculative.

I would be willing to wager there is considerably more natural gas, and other resources, in Siberia than there is in Alaska. Siberia is largely unexplored for its natural resources, and has 7.7 times the landmass of Alaska.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the AGW religious types will say to this?

How about "open your eyes"?

steffen-m-olsen-slaedehunde-i-smeltevand-quanaaq-13062019-2.jpg



092419_mt_ipcc_feat-1028x579.jpg


greenland_ice_melting.jpg
 
How about "open your eyes"?

steffen-m-olsen-slaedehunde-i-smeltevand-quanaaq-13062019-2.jpg

This photo in fact shows how thick the ice is.

The picture shows several sled dogs ankle-deep by meltwater off the city of Qaanaaq in northwestern Greenland. A Twitter post with the picture goes viral, has been shared more than 7500 times to date. […] In the meantime, however, Olsen from the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen has deflated the supposedly explosive message of his photo. He agrees that the picture has “more of a symbolic than a scientific value”, twittered the researcher. . . .
According to him, the photo in fact underscores how thick the ice is. ‘Because the ice is so thick, there are no holes through which the water can run out of the melted snow,’ said Mathiassen, adding that the water pictured, through which the sled dogs at Qaanaaq are scrambling, is not ice melt water, but apparently from melted snow.”

“Sled Dogs In Water” Climate Alarmism Photo Gets Exposed ...


NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin › 2019/06/29 › sled-dogs-in-water-climate-alarmi...



Jun 29, 2019 - A picture with sled dogs in Greenland arouses emotions worldwide – because it supposedly illustrates climate change. And it does. But only ...
 
This photo in fact shows how thick the ice is.

The picture shows several sled dogs ankle-deep by meltwater off the city of Qaanaaq in northwestern Greenland. A Twitter post with the picture goes viral, has been shared more than 7500 times to date. […] In the meantime, however, Olsen from the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen has deflated the supposedly explosive message of his photo. He agrees that the picture has “more of a symbolic than a scientific value”, twittered the researcher. . . .
According to him, the photo in fact underscores how thick the ice is. ‘Because the ice is so thick, there are no holes through which the water can run out of the melted snow,’ said Mathiassen, adding that the water pictured, through which the sled dogs at Qaanaaq are scrambling, is not ice melt water, but apparently from melted snow.”

“Sled Dogs In Water” Climate Alarmism Photo Gets Exposed ...


NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin › 2019/06/29 › sled-dogs-in-water-climate-alarmi...



Jun 29, 2019 - A picture with sled dogs in Greenland arouses emotions worldwide – because it supposedly illustrates climate change. And it does. But only ...

So you think that the ice beneath is not melting in that pic? How can that be? Every decade is warmer than the last but you don't think we are warming?

decadal-global-temps-1880s-2000s-620x365.gif


Past Three Decades Warmest on Record | NOAA Climate.gov
 
Last edited:
You are talking centuries into the future before we run out of natural gas. Who knows what technology will be available by then? It would be like Benjamin Franklin trying to imagine the technology available today. It would have been impossible, just as it is impossible to know what our technological development will be like by the year 2250 or beyond. While it makes sense to plan for the future, there is only so much future that one can plan. Anything beyond 10 to 20 years becomes more and more speculative.

I would be willing to wager there is considerably more natural gas, and other resources, in Siberia than there is in Alaska. Siberia is largely unexplored for its natural resources, and has 7.7 times the landmass of Alaska.
I know we are not going to run out of natural gas anytime soon, but that may not matter to the idea of using man made natural gas as a seasonal energy storage device
for places where natural gas is not available.
 
I know we are not going to run out of natural gas anytime soon, but that may not matter to the idea of using man made natural gas as a seasonal energy storage device
for places where natural gas is not available.

I would like to know where natural gas is not available. We're shipping it all over the world now, just like oil and coal. Fossil fuels are our primary source of energy today and it is prevalent everywhere, at much cheaper cost that trying to create it manually. So it makes absolutely no sense, and is actually counter-productive, to create solar panels that in turn create methane for long-term storage when we already have that long term storage and the natural gas to burn.

A better and more reliable alternative energy source is wood or biomass gasificiation. It uses renewable resources and is not subject to the climate or the amount of daylight. It is a very popular means of generating electricity in the more remote areas of Alaska.
 
I would like to know where natural gas is not available. We're shipping it all over the world now, just like oil and coal. Fossil fuels are our primary source of energy today and it is prevalent everywhere, at much cheaper cost that trying to create it manually. So it makes absolutely no sense, and is actually counter-productive to create solar panels that in turn create methane for long-term storage when we already have that long term storage and the natural gas to burn.

A better and more reliable alternative energy source is wood or biomass gasificiation. It uses renewable resources and is not subject to the climate or the amount of daylight. It is a very popular means of generating electricity in the more remote areas of Alaska.
Anywhere that you see people with propane tanks outside their homes, means they are likely not on the natural gas grid.
I am sure there are many places where the pipelines are too expensive to extend, and a few that cannot get propane.
I am talking about technology that could extend improved lifestyles to the most remote locations.
 
I would like to know where natural gas is not available. We're shipping it all over the world now, just like oil and coal. Fossil fuels are our primary source of energy today and it is prevalent everywhere, at much cheaper cost that trying to create it manually. So it makes absolutely no sense, and is actually counter-productive, to create solar panels that in turn create methane for long-term storage when we already have that long term storage and the natural gas to burn.

A better and more reliable alternative energy source is wood or biomass gasificiation. It uses renewable resources and is not subject to the climate or the amount of daylight. It is a very popular means of generating electricity in the more remote areas of Alaska.

Different regions or areas of earth are better served with different types of energy sources. The majority of humans on earth are dirt poor. Those communities should be encouraged to exploit the cheapest relatively efficient energy source available to them.
 
Different regions or areas of earth are better served with different types of energy sources. The majority of humans on earth are dirt poor. Those communities should be encouraged to exploit the cheapest relatively efficient energy source available to them.

I have no dispute with that argument. In fact, I have made the very same point myself on numerous occasions. Particularly with regard to electric vehicles and the extreme cold in the northern latitudes. Electric vehicles with their lithium batteries may work as advertised where the climate is warm, but any kind of battery and freezing temperatures are not a good combination. Use the means of energy that works best for your location. Local energy sources are often the cheapest sources.
 
And just think, according to secular genius science speculators it all begin here a gazillion years ago:

View attachment 67268785

Questions for only the educated: What caused global freezing which froze so large a portion of earth's surface and then what was the heat source which thawed all that ice out over the last however many thousands of years it must have taken? If there was a serious shortage of robust vegetation at the peak of the ice age then what was the source of the heat that began to thaw the earth then? Is that source still warming the earth today? Can that heat source be controlled by humans?
 
Some of it is and some is from the ice melting beneath it. Water is above freezing.

Nope. None is from melting ice. If there were melting ice below then the water (from melted snow) would not be trapped on top.
 
Back
Top Bottom