• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Attention warmers, read this and wake up.

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,901
Reaction score
34,455
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hope you learn something and I mean that in a positive way.

I've learned that even people with physics degrees can misread diagrams about energy movement, misapply thermodynamic principles, be fooled by out of context emails, and somehow manage to conclude that CO2 "should" actually have a cooling influence when observations show it very clearly does not. He's also misunderstanding carbon cycles and concluding that mankind's addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is a negative feedback for CO2. Like, dude, what? Are you drunk? He claims there isn't a tropospheric hot spot at the equator like the models predict.

There is. Also, he's way overestimating the importance of this hotspot to AGW theory. He's straight up claiming that if there's no hotspot then the theory is wrong automatically. The hotspot is actually an expected result of any warming trend, it's not even unique to the greenhouse effect. He's just making **** up there.

He makes a vague claim about other planets warming up. Not only is this a spotty assertion the way he presents it, it's completely irrelevant. The climate of other planets just don't compare well to Earth, because they all have very different variables. There's just no meaningful conclusion to draw from Mars' temperature that would apply to Earth, and that's ignoring the fact that our actual data about the temperature of other planets is incredibly minimal. After all, we don't have a permanent satellite in orbit of any other planet, nor any stations on their surfaces measuring much of anything. (ok, we got like a rover on Mars but that would be like hanging a thermometer outside your window and claiming global temperature trends with it)

The usual Medieval Warm Period meme pops up.

Makes an unfounded claim of temperature records being "inflated and manipulated." At which point I stopped reading. If he's willing to just declare that all the data is bad, then it's not a debate anymore.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,114
Reaction score
13,518
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've learned that even people with physics degrees can misread diagrams about energy movement


Care to wow us with how they should be read?


, misapply thermodynamic principles


Explain where he got it wrong and explain the proper application.


, be fooled by out of context emails,


What was the actual context, then? Have you seen the mystery other emails that change the context?


and somehow manage to conclude that CO2 "should" actually have a cooling influence when observations show it very clearly does not.


No they don't. Correlation doesn't prove causation no matter how much you may want it to. But then who have also misread that section anyway. He is not saying that CO2 has a cooling effect on the atmosphere, he is saying that it prevents more solar energy from reaching the surface which is perfectly true. Upper atmospheric CO2 that absorbs inbound IR radiation emits some of that radiation back into space meaning a net reduction in inbound radiation at the planet surface. This is common sense in the same way you probably understand that some of the IR radiated towards space is radiated back down to the surface. This is, after all, how the green house works.


He's also misunderstanding carbon cycles and concluding that mankind's addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is a negative feedback for CO2. Like, dude, what? Are you drunk? He claims there isn't a tropospheric hot spot at the equator like the models predict.


You misread this section as well. He argued that increase in CO2 increases the various natural mechanisms for CO2 sequestration (increased plant growth, shell formation, etc.), he then argues that the anthropogenic CO2 in th atmosphere increases the plant growth, shell formation and so on, so as human CO2 contribution rises, so does the natural negative feedbacks. But saying it increases negative feedbacks doesn't mean it is a net negative feedback anymore than saying that water vapor creates clouds which are a negative feedback mean that water vapor is a net negative feedback.


There is. Also, he's way overestimating the importance of this hotspot to AGW theory. He's straight up claiming that if there's no hotspot then the theory is wrong automatically. The hotspot is actually an expected result of any warming trend, it's not even unique to the greenhouse effect. He's just making **** up there.


You've missed this point as well. The hot spot predicted by the models doesn't exist, which isn't saying that no hot spot exists. Nobody denies that since the end of the LIA the planet has warmed... or we'd still be in the LIA. But the Hotspot that DOES exist in the tropical troposphere is much weaker than predicted, and since there is no clear understanding of the natural variance at work in the current climate we are left with a warming trend that is NOT abnormal or discernible from natural variation.



He makes a vague claim about other planets warming up. Not only is this a spotty assertion the way he presents it, it's completely irrelevant. The climate of other planets just don't compare well to Earth, because they all have very different variables. There's just no meaningful conclusion to draw from Mars' temperature that would apply to Earth


This is false. You are arguing against your own stance here anyway. IF CO2 is the primary driver of climate as CAGW theory demands then Mar and Venus, which both have far more CO2 than Earth's atmosphere should remain stable given that their CO2 doesn't widely vary. But they warmed as we warmed. So if CO2 isn't driving their warming, then why does it drive Earth's? Are you arguing that Earth's climate is simpler than Mars and Venus?

, and that's ignoring the fact that our actual data about the temperature of other planets is incredibly minimal. After all, we don't have a permanent satellite in orbit of any other planet, nor any stations on their surfaces measuring much of anything. (ok, we got like a rover on Mars but that would be like hanging a thermometer outside your window and claiming global temperature trends with it)


We don't need a permanent satellite in orbit around Venus or Mars. We are already remote viewers of Venus and Mars and can easily take the temperature of those planets from Earth in the same way we can tel the temperature of the Sun and distant stars.... unless you want to deny a century of cosmology.


The usual Medieval Warm Period meme pops up.


You only want to call it a meme because it is an inconvenient truth.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
3,996
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As ever it matters little what the CO 2 level is doing but what the temperatures are doing. As has been illustrated many times already todays temperatures are quite unremarkable when compared to other higher post glacial peaks where the CO 2 levels were much lower. If the hypothesis were correct we should be seeing temperature spikes the highest that there has ever been over that period. That we arent even close and that the current warming has stopped ,throws this whole demonization of CO2/humanity hypothesis into serious doubt.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,114
Reaction score
13,518
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Once again. Do you believe jmotivator, or the guys who put a man on the moon and a rover on Mars?

I know who I'm sticking with.

Climate Change: Evidence



Six of those eight are evidence of WARMING but you can't use WARMING to prove ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING. It's a classic reduction fallacy. This is a page meant to appeal to those who don't actually think very deeply on the subject, or in general.

The other two (extreme events and ocean acidification) actually are local and weather events that can not be used to prove anthropogenic global warming. But then your side KNOWS this as they are quick to point out that unseasonable cold in Copenhagen during a Global Warming summit is weather, not climate.... yet when you hand pick extreme events somehow they become evidence of AGW? Please, you aren't that stupid, Threegoofs.

Ocean Acidification is also a misnomer named so that the people who know nothing can be concerned. Naturally salt water is alkaline, and a rise in pH just change the fact that the water is never actually acidic. It is just less alkaline. But even excepting the misleading name, studies have shown recently that (surprise surprise) ocean pH varies not only globally, but natural ocean environments vary differently over time for natural reasons. We are just now starting to collect global ocean pH, but it is largely useless on the local scale as environments have been shown to vary naturally in swings far greater than even the high estimate of anthropogenic acidification. In other words, acidification is just another poorly understood natural phenomenon that catastrophists have seized as insurance for when AGW finally dies.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,211
Reaction score
19,329
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nice obfuscation. I'm still sticking with NASA, and every significant scientific organization on the planet.

I'm just not seeing that genius level intellect coming from you. Sorry.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,114
Reaction score
13,518
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your inability to grasp an argument does not equate to obfuscation, it just means you can't understand it.
 
Top Bottom