• 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!

Global warming: Fake news becomes no news

flogger said:
Certainly based on observations your figure of 0.57C for a doubling of CO2 seems a good deal more likely than any of the IPCCs exaggerations. Even this might be slightly high based on the logarithmic relationship with CO2 and temperature and I doubt we would have much trouble adapting to that given how well we have done so over the last centurys 0.7C rise. Modern technology too will be of huge assistance in this regard provided huge sums do not get frittered away in futile efforts at mitigation. Thankfully that latter scenario seems increasingly unlikely as governments quietly back away from committments they now know will be electoral suicide for them.

It looks like I won't be getting answers from our friend about what he wants done about it so clearly this is now a point of academic interest only.
Click to expand...

Because we know what the conversation will be.

Flogger - demands to know solutions assuming there is a problem
Mithrae- offers solutions
Flogger - decries solutions as pointless because there is no problem.
Mithrae- explains problem
Flogger -denies problem
Mithrae - clearly shows denial is silly
Flogger - demands solutions assuming there is a problem

Repeat ad lib.

We've all been on this merry go round before.
 
Mithrae said:
I've already cited several sources which reach or lead to that conclusion. But before trying to divert into that particular tangent, are you going to acknowledge a) the obvious falsehood of your suggestion that 100% of the energy imbalance still remains from historical CO2 emissions going back to 280ppm and b) the obvious self-contradiction between that and your frequent suggestions that all the warming from CO2 emissions to date has already occurred?
Click to expand...
a)The nature of the energy imbalance would be that as long as what caused the imbalance to occur is still present,
I.E. the added CO2, then the quantum reaction would continue to cause the energy imbalance.
b) The warming is a result of the energy imbalance, it is the energy imbalance that is instantaneous,
the warming of the atmospheric gasses, likely takes several hours, and total equilibrium several decades.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because we know what the conversation will be.
Flogger - demands to know solutions assuming there is a problem
Mithrae- offers solutions
Click to expand...

Please cite those solutions then because so far the silence has been deafening both past and present ? :waiting:

Is there some reason you think this person is incapable of speaking for themself or are you simply trolling for moral support ?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The same useless (in any practical sense) link you've used to dodge discussion forever.
Click to expand...

Its just more trolling for effect after all what else has he got left but to throw his bible at me ? :roll:
 
longview said:
a)The nature of the energy imbalance would be that as long as what caused the imbalance to occur is still present,
I.E. the added CO2, then the quantum reaction would continue to cause the energy imbalance.
b) The warming is a result of the energy imbalance, it is the energy imbalance that is instantaneous,
the warming of the atmospheric gasses, likely takes several hours, and total equilibrium several decades.
Click to expand...

So "The warming is a result of the energy imbalance" and "as long as what caused the imbalance to occur is still present, I.E. the added CO2, then the quantum reaction would continue to cause the energy imbalance," therefore there'll always be an imbalance causing more and more warming.

Thanks for the explanation. But assuming for the sake of argument that things like conservation of energy are actually true - I know, I know, it's only those damn scientists who say it and you're on a roll with proving them wrong today! - maybe you would have been better off just admitting that you were laughably wrong the first time, rather than digging the trench even deeper?
 
Mithrae said:
So "The warming is a result of the energy imbalance" and "as long as what caused the imbalance to occur is still present, I.E. the added CO2, then the quantum reaction would continue to cause the energy imbalance," therefore there'll always be an imbalance causing more and more warming.

Thanks for the explanation. But assuming for the sake of argument that things like conservation of energy are actually true - I know, I know, it's only those damn scientists who say it and you're on a roll with proving them wrong today! - maybe you would have been better off just admitting that you were laughably wrong the first time, rather than digging the trench even deeper?
Click to expand...

The big challenge for you and those selected scientists is to show how an extra 100PPM (which represents 0.01% of our atmospheric volume) has lead to this imbalance. According to the US EPA only some 15PPM of that extra 100PPM is attributable to human activity which represents 0.0015% of our atmospheric volume.

How would reducing this minute fraction make any measurable difference whatsoever and why must it be the west that leads by example ?
 
Jack Hays said:
The same useless (in any practical sense) link you've used to dodge discussion forever.
Click to expand...

This message has been brought to you by the Random-C&P Spammeister himself :lol:

Obviously you wouldn't be aware of this if you hadn't followed the relevant discussions, but contrary to your assertion Flogger knows exactly where to start with that link if he were even slightly honest about his questions. On numerous occasions I have pointed out to him personally the very chapter, section and paragraph of Working Group 3 in which he can look for information about the estimated cost of mitigation strategies.

Yet in the famous post #115 - his first of many, many attempts to deflect discussion away from the observation-based estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2-specific and anthropogenic forcing trends (which Longview has now helped confirm with information on the current energy imbalance) - Flogger made it overwhelmingly obvious that his intentions were neither objective nor honest:
flogger said:
Or in other words the worst of the damage humanity could ever have done to temperature has happened a while ago now even were CO2 the satanic element that it gets painted as by the screaming harpies. Perhaps we should bear this in mind before voluntarily impoverishing ourselves for absolutely nothing
Click to expand...

Let's quietly set aside the facts that his own graph showed more than half of the effects of CO2 still to come even just in terms of radiative forcing, and that his insults and quasi-religious emotional rhetoric suggest a mindset in which rational discussion with him would be impossible. All that aside, he has clearly expressed the opinion that mitigation of climate change would involve "impoverishing ourselves."

Now, if he were even slightly honest in his intentions to discuss mitigation strategies, he would begin by providing a point-by-point explanation of why the IPCC estimates of mitigation costs which I have shown him so many times are wrong: The IPCC estimates certainly do not involve impoverishing ourselves - on the contrary they suggest something in the order of 270-890% growth in global consumption by the end of the century!

Threegoofs helpfully pointed him in the right direction, and while I don't blame you for not having followed all previous discussions with Flogger, jumping in just to offer your "moral support" (as he put it) with no understanding of the context - and with such irony considering your own 'debate' habits! - really wasn't very productive.

I guess that doesn't really matter though, because we all know that Flogger will not do this anyway. He is not interested in honest discussion of that topic, only in personal attacks and emotional quasi-religious rhetoric to deflect the topic away from those 'scary' 2.1 to <2.7 degree sensitivity estimates.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The same useless (in any practical sense) link you've used to dodge discussion forever.
Click to expand...

Useless to him, yes, because he will never look at it.

It's useful for anyone who might want a comprehensive overview of mitigation of Climate Change, which not coincidentally, is the primary subject of one of the three working groups.
 
Mithrae said:
Let's quietly set aside the facts that his own graph showed more than half of the effects of CO2 still to come even just in terms of radiative forcing, and that his insults and quasi-religious emotional rhetoric suggest a mindset in which rational discussion with him would be impossible. All that aside, he has clearly expressed the opinion that mitigation of climate change would involve "impoverishing ourselves."
Click to expand...

Reading graphs does not seem to be your forte if thats what you think. And yes the proposals you would doubtless like to see inflicted on the west would do exactly that

Now, if he were even slightly honest in his intentions to discuss mitigation strategies, he would begin by providing a point-by-point explanation of why the IPCC estimates of mitigation costs which I have shown him so many times are wrong: The IPCC estimates certainly do not involve impoverishing ourselves - on the contrary they suggest something in the order of 270-890% growth in global consumption by the end of the century!
Click to expand...

Its a simple cost/benefit analysis really using countries who have gone down the renewable route and what it has cost them vs an effect on temperature that is likely to be so small as to be bearly measurable

Threegoofs helpfully pointed him in the right direction, and while I don't blame you for not having followed all previous discussions with Flogger, jumping in just to offer your "moral support" (as he put it) with no understanding of the context - and with such irony considering your own 'debate' habits! - really wasn't very productive.
Click to expand...
Looking to 3G for any kind of affirmation is hardly buttressing your credibility now is it ? :lol:

guess that doesn't really matter though, because we all know that Flogger will not do this anyway. He is not interested in honest discussion of that topic, only in personal attacks and emotional quasi-religious rhetoric to deflect the topic away from those 'scary' 2.1 to <2.7 degree sensitivity estimates.
Click to expand...

If you would just stop hiding behind all the pseudo science and arrogant moral superiority bluster you would get on a lot better. Answering the more searching questions that I've put to you would be a start
 
Mithrae said:
So "The warming is a result of the energy imbalance" and "as long as what caused the imbalance to occur is still present, I.E. the added CO2, then the quantum reaction would continue to cause the energy imbalance," therefore there'll always be an imbalance causing more and more warming.
Click to expand...
Not causing "more and more warming" the energy imbalance causes a DC offset, or a new equilibrium point.
The questions about AGW are,
How much will the TOA energy imbalance be from doubling the CO2 level?
and What is final ECS?
Hansen, et al 1997 seemed to think the TOA energy imbalance for Doubling the CO2 level would be 2.6 Wm-2.
If the amount of CO2 in the air is doubled, the atmosphere becomes more opaque,
temporarily reducing thermal emission to space.
The instantaneous flux change at the tropopause is about 4.7 W/m 2,
but the flux change at the top of the atmosphere is only about 2.6 W/m2,
because the added CO2 helps the stratosphere radiate to space more efficiently.
Click to expand...
He was actually closer to my crude estimate of 1.9 W/m2 than to the current IPCC level of 3.71W/m2.
I have very serious doubts, that we currently possess the ability to accurately measure
the total energy entering and leaving our planet, but if the energy imbalance is not accurate,
then that inaccuracy would be passed on to any amplified feedback that results from that imbalance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom