A Republican Case for Climate Action

[AlabamaPaul]

Actually, there might be some truth in that, but not in the way you mean.

One of the feedbacks counted on by the IPCC to create the dire warming that they predict is the increase in Water Vapor as a feed back from the warming caused by the increase in CO2.

There are two basic problems with this as evidenced by the FACT that the warming they have predicted has not occurred:

1. The Water vapor increase would produce more clouds and those clouds would reduce warming in two ways: At high altitude, the solar radiation would be reflected back to space. At lower altitudes, the shadows cast on the ground would reduce the Albedo heating and that would also produce a lack of warming. Of course rain is a cooling agent when it evaporates after having fallen or when it evaporates at any altitude.
2. The Green House properties of the incremental increases in CO2 decrease logarithmically. At the current concentrations, it will require a tripling of the CO2 to about 1200 ppm in the air before another degree of heating occurs due to CO2 Green house heating.


4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can « JoNova

You're ruining my fun...

 

[Threegoofs]

Another completely empty post devoid of any kind of information or data.

Are you going for a thousand straight?

I think there was quite a bit of information. Sorry it wasn't enough data for you.

Check here if you want corroborating data.

Www.ipcc.ch

 

[code1211]

if you want to see a example of the greenhouse effect, look at the surface of Venus, and the temperatures that it regularly receives.

When the SHAPE of the earth's orbit changes by as little as 3%, Ice ages start and end.

Earth is about 50% farther away from the Sun than is Venus. What you are saying is proof only of the effect of the Sun on the planets. The atmosphere of Venus is so very different than that of Earth, there is absolutely no comparison. These are literally different worlds.

The amount of CO2 on Earth was once very, very high and life evolved to "eat" it. The oxygen that we need is the waste product of the things that ate the CO2.

Additionally, the earth has seen the level of CO2 rise to the highest level within any Intergalcial for the last half million years at the time when the next ice age starts. If the effect of CO2 was what you predict it to be, the warming would continue and there would have been no ice Ages.

500 million years ago the level of CO2 was about 7000 ppm. This did not trigger the effect that you are predicting for our current level of 400 ppm.


Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Threegoofs]

When the SHAPE of the earth's orbit changes by as little as 3%, Ice ages start and end.

Earth is about 50% farther away from the Sun than is Venus. What you are saying is proof only of the effect of the Sun on the planets. The atmosphere of Venus is so very different than that of Earth, there is absolutely no comparison. These are literally different worlds.

The amount of CO2 on Earth was once very, very high and life evolved to "eat" it. The oxygen that we need is the waste product of the things that ate the CO2.

Additionally, the earth has seen the level of CO2 rise to the highest level within any Intergalcial for the last half million years at the time when the next ice age starts. If the effect of CO2 was what you predict it to be, the warming would continue and there would have been no ice Ages.

500 million years ago the level of CO2 was about 7000 ppm. This did not trigger the effect that you are predicting for our current level of 400 ppm.


Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

How do you know this stuff?

Science?

Then why don't you listen to the scientists who are telling you you ate wrong about denying AGW?

Because science tells us CO2 has always been an important driver of climate.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

 

[ocean515]

How do you know this stuff?

Science?

Then why don't you listen to the scientists who are telling you you ate wrong about denying AGW?

Because science tells us CO2 has always been an important driver of climate.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

Why does the solution to the "scientists science" require the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind?

Aren't you the least bit curious about their prescribed fix?

 

[Threegoofs]

Why does the solution to the "scientists science" require the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind?

Aren't you the least bit curious about their prescribed fix?

I find it fascinating that in order to believe the scientific reality, you have to like the solution first.

First things first. Identify the problem. Then fix it. Don't look at the fixes and then get scared and pretend the problem doesn't exist.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I'm still not convinced that a warmer planet isn't a happy planet.

Most of the state of Florida, New York City, DC, Norfolk, Charleston, SC and the Bay Area in California, London, most of the Netherlands and countless other places would likely disagree.

 

[ocean515]

I find it fascinating that in order to believe the scientific reality, you have to like the solution first.

First things first. Identify the problem. Then fix it. Don't look at the fixes and then get scared and pretend the problem doesn't exist.

Hmmm. Don't worry about our solution, just pay attention to what we tell you we're finding - oh, and whatever we find, it will cost more to deal with than anything that's ever been done since modern man first walked the earth. Not to worry, we'll tell you where to send the money.

I don't know, but there seems to be a few warning bells going off on that one.

 

[Deuce]

May I ask a simple question? Is there not an equal chance that summers would be cooler due to the insulating effects of these gasses?

No. It is not an equal chance. Greenhouse gasses do not reflect incoming solar radiation.

 

[Threegoofs]

Hmmm. Don't worry about our solution, just pay attention to what we tell you we're finding - oh, and whatever we find, it will cost more to deal with than anything that's ever been done since modern man first walked the earth. Not to worry, we'll tell you where to send the money.

I don't know, but there seems to be a few warning bells going off on that one.

Sure. And when you get diagnosed with cancer, I'm sure you'll look at the toxicity and expense of chemotherapy and then decide of you believe the diagnosis.

 

[LowDown]

It never ceases to amaze me how those who are against global warming never seem to understand how ridiculous it is to use a non-round number like 16 or 17 when discussing something like this. All it does is make it pretty clear you're not interested in looking at the larger picture and instead are simply focusing on one particular point.

I don't care what you believe, but use a different argument. The "17 years" argument is not credible, especially in a discussion concerning the length of time which is being discussed.

Oh, and the fact it's essentially false hurts the credibility as well.

Ok, then we can use the entire span of time that has passed since the IPCC published the predictions of the climate models. I mean we can hardly go back any further than that in terms of comparing real world data to the models.

Here you go.

No matter which way you cut it the models are worthless.

Again, the important point is not that there is a warming trend, a fact that hardly anyone disputes. It's the reliability of the models that is called into question.

 

[Threegoofs]

Again, the important point is not that there is a warming trend, a fact that hardly anyone disputes. It's the reliability of the models that is called into question.

You appparently havent been reading this thread. Let me point out post #20 by your buddy denier, Code1121.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally. "

(attention cons, read this next part very slowly. read it as many times as necessary)

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0

Why do you think conservatives disagree with that?

How many times must we remind you warmers. Those of us who do not drink from that chalice of AGW water aren't claiming that warming isn't occurring.

Again... We do not claim warming has not been occurring! We do not disagree that the oceans have been rising in sea level. We do not disagree that the Arctic ice is retreating.

What we disagree with is the extent that CO2 contributes to these!

Please explain to me something. What is causing the deep ocean to warm faster than the atmosphere when CO2 has no direct effect on it? Funny how the visible and UV bands of the sun, reach deep enough to circulate with those waters, when the same effective strength of CO2 radiative forcing only reaches about 3 microns of depth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm still not convinced that a warmer planet isn't a happy planet.

Same here. It might even bring enough more precipitation to slowly restore tropical landscapes in the equatorial area of Africa.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Scientifically, its totally clear that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are causing warming of the planet and climate change.

Yes, but how much of it? There isn't complete agreement on the issue that CO2 is the primary driver, therefore it isn't a valid assessment to claim as fact.

But virtually all of the major scientific bodies agree CAGW is real and will be an issue. The Republican Party cant even pass routine bills in Congress, much less agree to deal with a major issue like climate change, so we will have to wait until they get slammed in elections like they inevitably will be before change is seen in the US.

Again, real yes. What percentage would you place on it's effect vs. nature?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The mass of Venus's atmosphere is 100 times greater than earth's and is 96.5% CO2. How does that correlate to the 0.035% CO2 in our atmosphere? Why bother trying to compare the two?

It doesn't. That apple tastes like an orange to him.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's not really my view. It's the science.

The heat that is trapped is solar heat.

Bingo...

And what happens when that solar heat varies?

 

[Lord of Planar]

It never ceases to amaze me how those who are against global warming never seem to understand how ridiculous it is to use a non-round number like 16 or 17 when discussing something like this. All it does is make it pretty clear you're not interested in looking at the larger picture and instead are simply focusing on one particular point.

I don't care what you believe, but use a different argument. The "17 years" argument is not credible, especially in a discussion concerning the length of time which is being discussed.

Oh, and the fact it's essentially false hurts the credibility as well.

I find it equally amazing that people claim CO2 is the cause of ocean acidification because we see a short term decrease in pH of about 0.1. The ocean pH has a cyclical change with a 49 year average, does not trend with CO2 since 1700, and this cycle varies by about 0.3 pH.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When presented with facts, the AGW Diehards start to get real angry.

Prepare for the tantrums.

Yep.

I haven't been able to get Goofs to explain this one yet:



Follows CO2 real well.... NOT!

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep.

I haven't been able to get Goofs to explain this one yet:



Follows CO2 real well.... NOT!

Again, the first sentence from the abstract reads:

The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic car- bon dioxide from the atmosphere.

This is like debating Kevin Trudeau on the merits of whatever **** he is peddling this month.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Again, the first sentence from the abstract reads:

The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic car- bon dioxide from the atmosphere.

They can't get published if they don't chant the dogma. Besides, it does not disagree with what I said.

Yes, the acidity increases with CO2. Are you too blind to see that if a 0.01 pH increase is due to CO2, and a 0.1 pH increase by other forces, that the statement is still true?

Why not quote this part?

Large variations in pH are found over ~50-year cycles that covary with the
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that
natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef
ecosystems.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes,planar. It's all a conspiracy, but you know the simple math that proves all the chemists and oceanographers wrong...

It must be a wonderful world that you inhabit.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes,planar. It's all a conspiracy, but you know the simple math that proves all the chemists and oceanographers wrong...

It must be a wonderful world that you inhabit.

What does that graph tell you?

Seriously, cyclic pH, with no indication CO2 is the cause.

How do you explain it, or are you going to continue to ignore such evidence?

 

[Threegoofs]

All I can tell you is that the guys who have devoted their entire lives to this subject are telling me that CO2 is causing acidification.

I'm going with the PhD peer reviewers over The Lord of Planar. Call me crazy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

All I can tell you is that the guys who have devoted their entire lives to this subject are telling me that CO2 is causing acidification.

I'm going with the PhD peer reviewers over The Lord of Planar. Call me crazy.

Even though there are other experts who point out there is more controlling the environment than just CO2.

OK...