• 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!

Deniers, explained.

You’re amateur opinion is noted.
The 20% of the 33°C is not my opinion, but came directly from the GISS.
It may be a thought experiment, but leads to a logical conclusion.
It would take at least 8 doubling s of CO2 to get from 1ppm to the pre industrial level of 270 ppm,
and we know the total assigned to all those doubling s is 6.6°C.
 
You do realize that what you just wrote is the exact opposite of what anyone who knows what they are talking about says, right?
And yet that is the very basis of the greenhouse effect, that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be
if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual
global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption,
but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C.
To believe that the climate has greater sensitivity to added, CO2, means we must ignore
what all the past doubling s of CO2 did.
Were there more doubling s, than the eight I counted (and there likely are) the sensitivity per doubling would only do down.
To assume otherwise, is to assume facts not in evidence!
 
And yet that is the very basis of the greenhouse effect, that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be
if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect

To believe that the climate has greater sensitivity to added, CO2, means we must ignore
what all the past doubling s of CO2 did.
Were there more doubling s, than the eight I counted (and there likely are) the sensitivity per doubling would only do down.
To assume otherwise, is to assume facts not in evidence!

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
 
Last edited:
By all means, Please point out the flaw in the logic?
 
Again,
So you are unable to cite a peer reviewed paper that actually states the urgent need for action?
The IPCC report reference plenty of peer reviewed papers, as well as material that is not peer reviewed,
so is not itself peer reviewed.
Can you cite one of those peer reviewed papers that actually state an urgent need for action?

The IPCC report are reviewed.

"All IPCC reports undergo two stages of review. A First Order Draft is reviewed by experts. Following the expert review, authors develop a Second Order Draft based on the comments received. This draft then undergoes a second review by both governments and experts. Authors will prepare a Final Draft based on the comments received during the second review. The Final Draft is distributed to governments at the time of the final government review of the Summary for Policymakers."


Registration opens for Expert Review of IPCC Working Group II contribution to IPCC Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC.

Also why do you demand that I present the evidence for the urgent need for action on climate change then the world's leading scientists have done a astronomical better job in proving the urgent need for action than what I would ever been able to accomplish? Take for example just the first chapter in the IPCC report that I linked to have nine pages of references. There this is just some of the reference on letter A for that chapter.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter1_Low_Res.pdf

Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents | Nature

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 degC future | SpringerLink

Also you still provided no evidence for why these 31 leading scientific organizations shouldn't be trusted in their conclusions that there are an urgent need for action on climate change. That you not provide a single source that back up your ridiculous claims that these leading American scientific organizations are acknowledging the urgent need for action because they want to keep the gravy train running and also that they I according to you don't represent their members.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Public Health Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, American Society of Naturalists, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, Botanical Society of America, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, Geological Society of America, National Association of Marine Laboratories, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society for Mathematical Biology, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Society of Nematologists,Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf
 
Last edited:
And yet that is the very basis of the greenhouse effect, that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be
if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect

To believe that the climate has greater sensitivity to added, CO2, means we must ignore
what all the past doubling s of CO2 did.
Were there more doubling s, than the eight I counted (and there likely are) the sensitivity per doubling would only do down.
To assume otherwise, is to assume facts not in evidence!

The effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 depends on the absolute concentration of CO2. That is, doubling the concentration from, say, 10ppm to 20ppm would not have the same effect as doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm. When we talk of the ECS, we mean the effect of doubling from its current concentration or thereabouts.
 
The IPCC report are reviewed.

"All IPCC reports undergo two stages of review. A First Order Draft is reviewed by experts. Following the expert review, authors develop a Second Order Draft based on the comments received. This draft then undergoes a second review by both governments and experts. Authors will prepare a Final Draft based on the comments received during the second review. The Final Draft is distributed to governments at the time of the final government review of the Summary for Policymakers."


Registration opens for Expert Review of IPCC Working Group II contribution to IPCC Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC.

Also why do you demand that I present the evidence for the urgent need for action on climate change then the world's leading scientists have done a astronomical better job in proving the urgent need for action than what I would ever been able to accomplish? Take for example just the first chapter in the IPCC report that I linked to have nine pages of references. There this is just some of the reference on letter A for that chapter.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter1_Low_Res.pdf

Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents | Nature

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 degC future | SpringerLink

Also you still provided no evidence for why these 31 leading scientific organizations shouldn't be trusted in their conclusions that there are an urgent need for action on climate change. That you not provide a single source that back up your ridiculous claims that these leading American scientific organizations are acknowledging the urgent need for action because they want to keep the gravy train running and also that they I according to you don't represent their members.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Public Health Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, American Society of Naturalists, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, Botanical Society of America, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, Geological Society of America, National Association of Marine Laboratories, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society for Mathematical Biology, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Society of Nematologists,Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf

Because the IPCC does not present evidence for an urgent need for action, they present a range of possibilities, 1.5 to 4.5°C.
The range is not a statistical distribution, but a collection of model results, and not all based on the same assumptions.
The mid to high end of that range may be of concern, but the models based or actual observations, mostly come in at 2°C or below.
The entire concept of AGW, is that IF Humans stop sinning (emitting CO2), the world will not warm, and sea levels will not raise.
The reality is that the climate will continue to warm, until it starts to cool, and the sea level will continue to raise, until it starts to fall.
The best course of Human action, is to address the actual problems, rather than the imagined ones.
At some point, the low cost energy we get from stored fossil energy, will no longer be low cost.
We need to be able to do the same things that we do with oil based fuel products.
In addition, we need to be able to sustain the production of that energy for everyone alive!
I do not see any existing battery technology that can carry this load, in the near future.
For fixed applications like Grid storage, hydrogen storage has some possibilities, with bidirectional fuel cells.
For passenger jets, we are going to need hydrocarbon jet fuel, but it can be carbon neutral.
 
The effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 depends on the absolute concentration of CO2. That is, doubling the concentration from, say, 10ppm to 20ppm would not have the same effect as doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm. When we talk of the ECS, we mean the effect of doubling from its current concentration or thereabouts.
Are you sure about that? The early research was about reducing and increasing CO2 levels.
Svante Arrhenius was looking at causes of the ice age.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
In the American Chemical Society page, They use the same doubling formula for an increase in CO2 between 185ppm to 265ppm.
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
The increase in CO2 from about 185 to about 265 ppm gives a radiative forcing of

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2
They also mention that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be
if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
In the absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, ε would be unity, and TP would be 255 K.
The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere give a lower effective emissivity that requires an
increase of TP to about 288 K to maintain energy balance.
 
Are you sure about that? The early research was about reducing and increasing CO2 levels.
Svante Arrhenius was looking at causes of the ice age.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
In the American Chemical Society page, They use the same doubling formula for an increase in CO2 between 185ppm to 265ppm.
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society

They also mention that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be
if the atmosphere were completely transparent.

Yes, I am sure about that. To take an extreme example, doubling the total number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from 1 to 2 would have no effect on temperature whatsoever, whereas doubling the current concentration would certainly have an effect. Ergo, the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration is indeed dependent on the actual concentration.
 
Yes, I am sure about that. To take an extreme example, doubling the total number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from 1 to 2 would have no effect on temperature whatsoever, whereas doubling the current concentration would certainly have an effect. Ergo, the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration is indeed dependent on the actual concentration.
I am going to say that you do not understand how CO2 warms the surface.
Doubling the CO2 level from say 1 ppm to 2 ppm, would have the same effect as moving from 300 ppm to 600 ppm,
that is how a doubling curve works.
images

https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/164001
I found this graph on a state site (Not a blog) Early increases in CO2 had a much greater warming per ppm than later increases.
Per the Modtran calculations the first 20 ppm caused most of the CO2 warming.
 
I am going to say that you do not understand how CO2 warms the surface.
Doubling the CO2 level from say 1 ppm to 2 ppm, would have the same effect as moving from 300 ppm to 600 ppm,
that is how a doubling curve works.
images

https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/164001
I found this graph on a state site (Not a blog) Early increases in CO2 had a much greater warming per ppm than later increases.
Per the Modtran calculations the first 20 ppm caused most of the CO2 warming.

Finds random graph on internet that disproves all the experts.

That’s legit.

[emoji849]
 
Finds random graph on internet that disproves all the experts.

That’s legit.

[emoji849]
Actually, all the experts agree that CO2 works on a natural log curve!
If you believe otherwise, you will have to support that with a citation.
 
<deleted post><Deleted Post>Deleted Post
 
A deadly accurate post.

No, I mean what does the importance of the logarithmic curve mean to you?

If it is accurate then what are the implications?
 
No, I mean what does the importance of the logarithmic curve mean to you?

If it is accurate then what are the implications?

To me that's just the way it's always been described. 3G does not know that, apparently.
 
To me that's just the way it's always been described. 3G does not know that, apparently.

OK, I'm sorry, I know I play rough with you sometimes. I understand that even basic math isn't necessarily in your wheelhouse but it's always fun to see someone who clearly has no real understanding of the topic make such BOLD declarations as "Bingo, center mass hit!"

Let me explain it to you:

The increase in forcing with increasing CO2 follows a "logarithmic curve", this means that at higher amounts of CO2 (relative to some starting condition) the relative forcing will increase less and less.

It looks like this:

300px-Binary_logarithm_plot_with_ticks.svg.png


Now this is a "generalized" log curve (NOT specific to CO2 forcing) but it shows what I'm talking about. Note that as X gets bigger and bigger Y doesn't rise as much with each addition to X. It starts to look like it's going to kind of flatten out (not necessarily perfectly flat but you get the point).

Your glee at the logarithmic curve is understandable, most denialists like to point this out. But, sadly, it doesn't really alter the fact that added CO2 will still lead to more warming.. The effect of added CO2 is NOT saturated. Some absorption bands may be close to saturated but not all of them, and besides, global warming works not by absorbing all IR, but rather increasing the altitude at which absorbed IR is re-emitted back into space.. With increasing CO2 that level gets higher and higher and higher until it is re-emitting from a very sparsely populated zone of the atmosphere which is much less efficient at re-emission.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm sorry, I know I play rough with you sometimes. I understand that even basic math isn't necessarily in your wheelhouse but it's always fun to see someone who clearly has no real understanding of the topic make such BOLD declarations as "Bingo, center mass hit!"

Let me explain it to you:

The increase in forcing with increasing CO2 follows a "logarithmic curve", this means that at higher amounts of CO2 (relative to some starting condition) the relative forcing will increase less and less.

It looks like this:

300px-Binary_logarithm_plot_with_ticks.svg.png


Now this is a "generalize" log curve but it shows what I'm talking about. Note that as X gets bigger and bigger Y doesn't rise as much with each addition to X. It starts to look like it's going to kind of flatten out (not necessarily perfectly flat but you get the point).

Your glee at the logarithmic curve is understandable, most denialists like to point this out. But, sadly, it doesn't really alter the fact that added CO2 will still lead to more warming.. The effect of added CO2 is NOT saturated. Some absorption bands may be close to saturated but not all of them, and besides, global warming works not by absorbing all IR, but rather increasing the altitude at which absorbed IR is re-emitted back into space.. With increasing CO2 that level gets higher and higher and higher until it is re-emitting from a very sparsely populated zone of the atmosphere which is much less efficient at re-emission.

I really don't care. My interest was in the exposure of 3G's ignorance.
 
I really don't care. My interest was in the exposure of 3G's ignorance.

I don't think you were as successful as you hoped. In fact you kind of revealed something far more sad.
 
OK, I'm sorry, I know I play rough with you sometimes. I understand that even basic math isn't necessarily in your wheelhouse but it's always fun to see someone who clearly has no real understanding of the topic make such BOLD declarations as "Bingo, center mass hit!"

Let me explain it to you:

The increase in forcing with increasing CO2 follows a "logarithmic curve", this means that at higher amounts of CO2 (relative to some starting condition) the relative forcing will increase less and less.

It looks like this:

300px-Binary_logarithm_plot_with_ticks.svg.png


Now this is a "generalized" log curve (NOT specific to CO2 forcing) but it shows what I'm talking about. Note that as X gets bigger and bigger Y doesn't rise as much with each addition to X. It starts to look like it's going to kind of flatten out (not necessarily perfectly flat but you get the point).

Your glee at the logarithmic curve is understandable, most denialists like to point this out. But, sadly, it doesn't really alter the fact that added CO2 will still lead to more warming.. The effect of added CO2 is NOT saturated. Some absorption bands may be close to saturated but not all of them, and besides, global warming works not by absorbing all IR, but rather increasing the altitude at which absorbed IR is re-emitted back into space.. With increasing CO2 that level gets higher and higher and higher until it is re-emitting from a very sparsely populated zone of the atmosphere which is much less efficient at re-emission.

Your graph has the right shape, but for CO2, the x intercept is wrong.
There is no such thing as a negative ppm count for a gas, the count starts at zero CO2 and increases from there.
The response to your log curve is what 3G was saying disagreed with the experts, which is incorrect.
The response of energy imbalance to the natural log curve could be expressed as 5.35 X ln(271.8)=28.98 W/m2.
That is the 30 W/m2 for all the CO2 up to the pre industrial level.
it also means that 5.35 X ln (20)=16W/m2, so the first 20 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere, is responsible for 53% of the total forcing.
 
Nah. Not really.

if YOU don't necessarily know the details about logarithmic curves related to CO2, why would you act so gleeful about someone else's understanding being questioned? I honestly don't understand that mindset.

(But don't feel bad, I'm not the world's greatest mathematician myself, so I'm not one to be too brutal about others' lack. But you should know the details of a topic before taking someone else to task)
 
Back
Top Bottom