• 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!

AN ANTI-SCIENCE MANIA TAKES OVER GOP

Generally speaking CO2 follows a rise in temperature. This is a data found in ice cores.
I need to offer some correction here.

When the only sourcing of CO2 is natural, CO2 levels do follow the SST. This has to do with the partial pressures between the ocean and the atmosphere equalizing. This is an extremely slow process however. Once mankind interrupted the balance, CO2 now modulates temperature rather than temperature modulating CO2.

It works both ways, depending on the variables changing.

The minor warming of the oceans will increase the natural equilibrium of CO2 in the atmosphere. I haven't seen any solid numbers on it. Myself, I will assume that from the 1750 level of 278 ppm, the slightly warmer oceans would have us equalize to about 290 ppm now. This excess of 400 ppm is no doubt, caused by us. The biosphere simply cannot sink it as fast as we are emitting it.
 
I actually don't care that you posted a blog. Its your hypocrisy.

Did it have any supporting links? I forget.

Asking another person if they have supporting links. This from a person who has posted NONE.
 
I do disagree. I already pointed out why without specifying directly how it is misleading.

If I went into a deeper explanation, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway. Why should I waste my time?

Lots of lame excuses, just like every other right winger in DP.
 
This isn't arguing my point.

You are hung up on proving some side point. I get that you can use Google. I'm really impressed.
Well actually it does.
We would be better off if people would Google actual science papers and strive to understand them...vs...say your what? Faith?
 
I
Does an increase in CO2 ever CAUSE atmospheric warming?
It most likely does. The radiative calculations say a that a doubling, should cause an approximate 1.2 degree increase. That is if all other variables remain unchanged. The problem here is that increased CO2 causes modulation of several other variable, both positive and negative in their resulting forcing changes. Here's where the science gets too hard at out level of understanding to accurately conclude. How much feedback do this other variables actually give us? Is the net result positive or negative, and how much?
 
I

It most likely does. The radiative calculations say a that a doubling, should cause an approximate 1.2 degree increase. That is if all other variables remain unchanged. The problem here is that increased CO2 causes modulation of several other variable, both positive and negative. Here's where the science gets too hard at out level of understanding to accurately conclude. How much feedback do this other variables actually give us? Is the net result positive or negative, and how much?

They keep trying. Better than those right wing Republican fools quoted in the OP.
 
Do think the ancient Martian right wing said the same?
 
Painting with such a broad paintbrush is for children.

I simply seek the truth. It’s based on literally decades of conversing with right wingers. One lame excuse after another. That is when they are not telling outright lies.
 
I simply seek the truth. It’s based on literally decades of conversing with right wingers. One lame excuse after another. That is when they are not telling outright lies.
You're the one thinking you know things about the climate sciences, and fail to understand the simple explanations given. I don't see you seeking the truth.
 
I'm not sure.
You're the one thinking you know things about the climate sciences, and fail to understand the simple explanations given. I don't see you seeking the truth.

I never claimed to be a climate scientist. That’s why I post info from climate scientists or referring to the research and data from climate scientists instead of from “leg of the elephant” chatters in an online forum. I must say that I am enjoying these threads because I am learning a whole lot from istodolez. And sometimes from you when you are not in denier mode.
 
I have never really understood the long-game in the GOP's fight against science and education. I understand the short-game of immediate power and secured support within certain organizations, but the longer horizon results in a weaker nation.
It is obvious. Any attempts to mitigate climate change upsets the status quo.
 
This is your anti-science Republican Party. Read especially the last one, where Bible trumps science.

“I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do. …” Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin

“Nobody really knows the cause. The earth cools, the earth warms … It could be caused by carbon dioxide or methane. Maybe we should kill the cows to stop the methane, or stop breathing to stop the CO2 … Thousands of people die every year of cold, so if we had global warming it would save lives … We ought to look out for people. The earth can take care of itself.”Rep. Duncan Hunter, California

“There was a report a couple of weeks ago that in fact you look at this last year, it was the warmest year in the last decade, I think was the numbers that came out. I don’t — I accept that. I do not say that it is man-made.”Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan

“The greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people.” — Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma

Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois says we need not worry about the planet being destroyed because, citing chapter 8, verse 22 of the Book of Genesis, God promised Noah it wouldn’t happen again after the great flood.”

It is obvious. Any attempts to mitigate climate change upsets the status quo.
 
It is obvious. Any attempts to mitigate climate change upsets the status quo.

Here’s the real problem: yes, it will take a lot of money to attempt to mitigate manmade global warming, but not nearly as much as it will to adapt to the environmental changes that will result in the mass movement of literally millions upon millions of people as the seas begin their steady encroachment on low-lying land areas and increased inland flooding and droughts etc etc etc. This is a case where spending money on the front end will save way more later on.
 
Here’s the real problem: yes, it will take a lot of money to attempt to mitigate manmade global warming, but not nearly as much as it will to adapt to the environmental changes that will result in the mass movement of literally millions upon millions of people as the seas begin their steady encroachment on low-lying land areas and increased inland flooding and droughts etc etc etc. This is a case where spending money on the front end will save way more later on.
I agree. The current winners with power don't care.
 
I never claimed to be a climate scientist. That’s why I post info from climate scientists or referring to the research and data from climate scientists instead of from “leg of the elephant” chatters in an online forum. I must say that I am enjoying these threads because I am learning a whole lot from istodolez. And sometimes from you when you are not in denier mode.
You are posting propaganda. Not real science.
 
I actually don't care that you posted a blog. Its your hypocrisy.

I think I noted that occasionally I do utilize blogs just that I don't EXCLUSIVELY utilize blogs.

People like Jack used to use EXCLUSIVELY 2 or 3 denialist blogs. That's problematic.
 
So you are telling me the utility is giving me a freebie??? Gosh. And I'm supposed to be concerned about their ability to be a functional business when THEY SET THE RATE FOR THIS AND THEY ARE GIVING ME FREE STUFF??

I am dubious of your claim.



And you act as if "gross profit" is somehow a thermodynamic law that cannot be violated.



I did fine for 8 years on solar in SoCal.



WHy is it lost? Because YOU lack imagination on how to enable storage? That's not my problem. It's not even really the utility's problems.

When we lived in SoCal we often heard about how hard the grid was stressed in the summer due to high loads. Well, here's an idea: GET ELECTRICITY FROM THE GRID. Which is what I was supplying.

I was doing a good thing. But apparently the "gross profits" god must be fed!

Sorry, again, utilities are a "natural monopoly" we ALLOW to exist so they will have a stable infrastructure. They are not competing for business. So their lives are, in this marketplace, a bit easier. Why do they NEED the profit levels you just laid out?

And, here's a shocker: WHY DO WE NEED TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR UTILIZING RENEWABLE ENERGY?

I don't get it. I mean I understand your reactionary approach and fear of anything that upsets the applecarts of bean counters, but honestly it's not like we'll have a lot of choices in the future. Maybe asking the power company to retool to adapt to a new world will be a better choice in the long run?

NONE OF THIS IS INVIOLABLE LAW OF NATURE. We are FREE TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO DO in regards to how we do our energy infrastructure. WE HAVE THE POWER.
So we can add accounting to classes you never took!
The Utility is being forced by it's regulating agency to give you retail credit for each excess Kwh you generate.
If they can sell that Kwh to one of your neighbors( assuming demand at that instant) then they are selling something
for exactly what they paid for it. If there is not a demand for that unit at that time, it is lost as heat, but still has to be paid for
when you redeem the credit at night. Not only does the utility loose the gross profit from the Kwh you used to purchase,
now they also must pay more for the surplus Kwh, they are forced to give you credit for.
It is actually even worse than I am describing, because if they raise the rate to cover the loss,
the value of the credit you receive increases also!
The system was only ever to encourage early adopters, it was never an idea that could support more than a few percent of solar
homes within a utility.
Net metering problems
"Most residential and smaller customers, however, pay only a small fixed monthly charge with all other utility costs built into their charge per kWh. So when a customer offsets purchased power with generated kWh to net out at nearly zero kWh billed, that customer is not contributing to the fixed costs required to maintain the system upon which they rely. "
 
I simply seek the truth. It’s based on literally decades of conversing with right wingers. One lame excuse after another. That is when they are not telling outright lies.
What is the truth about the climate's sensitivity to added CO2?
Both NASA GISS and Gavin's own blog Real Climate use nearly the same basis for the entire greenhouse effect.
Real Climate
"“33 ºC” is the difference between the mean surface air temperature of the planet and the blackbody radiating temperature (i.e. the temperature a blackbody would need to radiate at to be in equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation given an albedo of about 0.3). "
Combined with,
"While that is one way to assess the strength of the basic greenhouse effect, another one is measure the amount of long wave radiation from the surface that is absorbed in the atmosphere (by greenhouse gases (incl. water vapour), clouds, aerosols, etc.). That is currently about 150 W/m2 and would be zero with no greenhouse effect at all. "
So 33 ºC is a result of 150 W/m2 of energy imbalance.
He goes on to say what amount of the 33 ºC could be from CO2.
“The other trace gases contribute 5% … amongst which carbon dioxide corresponds to 3.65%”. That is just 100 minus 95% of course, but really it should be 15 to 34% – of which CO2 on its own is between 9 and 26% (op cit). If you were to naively estimate the total temperature contribution of the CO2 it would be between 3 and 9 ºC "

We should remember that the 9ºC above is for ZERO water vapor (26%).
NASA GISS picks 20% or 6.6ºC for all the CO2.
I want to say that the 33 ºC number has been around for over a century, so if we assume it is based on a CO2 level of 280 ppm,
we get 8.09 doubling s of CO2, fully equalized to 6.6 ºC of warming, or .82ºC per doubling.
Now this is actually less than the calculated 1.1C per doubling for direct forcing, and so implies that
more feedbacks are negative than positive!
 
I think I noted that occasionally I do utilize blogs just that I don't EXCLUSIVELY utilize blogs.

People like Jack used to use EXCLUSIVELY 2 or 3 denialist blogs. That's problematic.
There you go again. Showing your bias and misunderstanding, calling them "denialist" blogs.

Please grow up.
 
Back
Top Bottom