• 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!

Tackling climate change ?

You clearly don't understand that Montreal was enacted in part to address AGW which would have accelerated exponentially had the growing ozone hole been allowed to expand beyond the point where human intervention could prevent it...
Says someone's opinion written 30 years later.
The actual agreement, Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
strangely does not mention "forcing", greenhouse gasses, or much about CO2, other than it is a component in creating ozone,
and CO2 equivalent units.
 
Says someone's opinion written 30 years later.
The actual agreement, Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
strangely does not mention "forcing", greenhouse gasses, or much about CO2, other than it is a component in creating ozone,
and CO2 equivalent units.
It is not "someone's" opinion but that of global scientific consensus. And yes, it is working both in the context of ozone depletion and its effects on glabal warming. As for your "30 years later" comment what did you expect; overnight success? The ozone hole is predicted to be fully healed only in the middle years of this century.
 
It is not "someone's" opinion but that of global scientific consensus. And yes, it is working both in the context of ozone depletion and its effects on glabal warming. As for your "30 years later" comment what did you expect; overnight success? The ozone hole is predicted to be fully healed only in the middle years of this century.
"global scientific consensus" of what? That someone says the Montreal Protocol.
Also your cited paper was not about CO2, but about that ozone-depleting substances (ODSs),
also happen to be greenhouse gases, which while true, was not the reason the Montreal Protocol attempted to reduce their emissions.
 
"global scientific consensus" of what? That someone says the Montreal Protocol.
Also your cited paper was not about CO2, but about that ozone-depleting substances (ODSs),
also happen to be greenhouse gases, which while true, was not the reason the Montreal Protocol attempted to reduce their emissions.
I can see it's pointless talking to a climate change sceptic, so I'll just leave you with this...
"Many ozone depleting substances also have high global warming potential".
 
I can see it's pointless talking to a climate change sceptic, so I'll just leave you with this...
"Many ozone depleting substances also have high global warming potential".
And there is nothing wrong with the statement, "Many ozone depleting substances also have high global warming potential."
but it does not mean that the Montreal Protocol was considering AGW, when it was passed.
It also does not make the Science behind the concept of catastrophic AGW, any better!
 
And there is nothing wrong with the statement, "Many ozone depleting substances also have high global warming potential."
but it does not mean that the Montreal Protocol was considering AGW, when it was passed.
It also does not make the Science behind the concept of catastrophic AGW, any better!
Whose science; yours? Sorry, but I prefer that of independent, unbiased and qualified scientists than an AGW sceptic with a clear denialist agenda.
 
Whose science; yours? Sorry, but I prefer that of independent, unbiased and qualified scientists than an AGW sceptic with a clear denialist agenda.
Consider, that CO2 forcing alone at roughly 1.1 C for each doubling, is not of much concern.
It is only when the amplified feedbacks are included that potentially scary numbers are reached.
But the science behind the amplified feedbacks, are highly subjective.
The observed data, says the feedbacks are minimal, (How we see the climate actually respond). (Peer reviewed Publications)
The modeled feedbacks are all over the place, depending on which assumptions you use on the inputs.
We have to ask ourselves, how will the future climate respond? Like it has in the recent past, or like a simulation says it might?
 
It seems to me recent environmental conditions confirm what scientists have been telling us about the results of a warming planet for at least a couple of decades.

Most of the world is preparing for the undeniable results of this warming. Many countries are moving forward with plans to mitigate the damage we have caused. Are we past the point of no return or is it possible if we take steps now we can slow or stop our catastrophic future?
 
It seems to me recent environmental conditions confirm what scientists have been telling us about the results of a warming planet for at least a couple of decades.

Most of the world is preparing for the undeniable results of this warming. Many countries are moving forward with plans to mitigate the damage we have caused. Are we past the point of no return or is it possible if we take steps now we can slow or stop our catastrophic future?
AGW is very real, if we add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, it will cause some additional average warming, this is not really in question.
Ice Core records from past interglacial periods, say there is no "point of no return", it got several degrees warmer in the past, and the natural processes
brought us back into another ice age.
Do we potentially have a catastrophic future? The answer depends on how sensitive the climate is to added greenhouse gasses.
There are two schools of thought, one is to observe how the climate has responded to past warming, and project that forward,
the second is to assume how the climate will respond, and project that assumption forward.
I tend to go with the observed approach, because observations include all the variables, including the ones we do not know about.
I am not saying we should do nothing, and indeed we are doing plenty, but we need to address our actual problems.
Humans do not emit CO2 because we get pleasure from the emission, we emit CO2 because we demand the energy to maintain our standard of living.
The answer is not to attempt to directly limit how much CO2 we emit, but to find a way to get the energy we demand, without the CO2 emissions.
Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydro, all produce carbon free energy, but it is in the form of electricity.
Electricity is great, but must be used within seconds of generation, and is difficult to store in the quantities and for the time needed to be useful.
Also the irregular duty cycle of wind and solar, leads to periods of surplus, and periods of insufficient power.
Energy storage would allow us to move Fall and Spring Surplus, to Winter and Summer demand.
I advocate hydrocarbon energy storage, as it solves several of the problems arising from attempting to make society carbon free.
If we use the surplus energy to create carbon neutral transport fuels, we have a dump for the surplus energy, and usable fuel for
application that cannot be filled with electricity.
Because the fuel was made with atmospheric CO2, when it is burned, it produces net ZERO CO2.
This mans that Jets and ships could be carbon neutral. (The technology is called Power to Liquid)
The first power to liquid plant is being built in Norway now, to make jet fuel.
 
Consider that the Number I cam up with is very close to peer reviewed published findings, why do you think my numbers are that far off.
The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity

My simple method average was 1.55C, Lewis/Curry (2018) was between a ECS of 1.66C and a TCR of 1.33C,
In any case, my estimate for the Climate's sensitivity to added CO2, is closer to actual published work, than people who say it could be 3C of higher.
Perhaps we should look at the work of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
Energy budget constraints on climate response


Remember that TCR more closely resembles Human CO2 emissions (although still too high a rate).
Even the authors of the IPCC report, come in at the low end of the range.
So whose expertise are you taking?

With “my simple method” being the key words, as opposed to decades-long research and data from actual climate scientists. *L*
 
With “my simple method” being the key words, as opposed to decades-long research and data from actual climate scientists. *L*
Had you read the thread, you might have noticed that I included citations of papers with quite a few actual climate Scientists,
whose results are in the same range as my own!
 
Had you read the thread, you might have noticed that I included citations of papers with quite a few actual climate Scientists,
whose results are in the same range as my own!

What then are their conclusions as regards AGW? Are they the same as yours? Why or why not? It is well known that you cherry pick “results” and use them for confirmation bias rather than as a part of a whole as regards the overall approach in AGW. Nobody is impressed with that methodology except perhaps a few of your fellow AGW deniers.
 
What then are their conclusions as regards AGW? Are they the same as yours? Why or why not? It is well known that you cherry pick “results” and use them for confirmation bias rather than as a part of a whole as regards the overall approach in AGW. Nobody is impressed with that methodology except perhaps a few of your fellow AGW deniers.
I am not sure what prevents you from reading and drawing your own conclusions, but here is what the Otto article said.
Energy budget constraints on climate response
Our results match those of other observation-based studies15 and suggest that the TCRs of some of the models in the CMIP5
ensemble10 with the strongest climate response to increases in atmospheric CO2 levels may be inconsistent with recent observations
 
There is absolutely no evidence for that eventuality. Indeed there is nothing outwith the normal natural variation of recent millennia marking out today as in any way remarkable and the ice core records from both poles confirm this .

mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.html

All the rest is just political hype

Oops. Looks like the graphs that you presented are in error and thus quite worthless:

“Based on an early Greenland ice core record produced back in 1997, versions of the graph have, variously, mislabeled the x-axis, excluded the modern observational temperature record and conflated a single location in Greenland with the whole world.

More recently, researchers have drilled numerous additional ice cores throughout Greenland and produced an updated estimate past Greenland temperatures.

This modern temperature reconstruction, combined with observational records over the past century, shows that current temperatures in Greenland are warmer than any period in the past 2,000 years. That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago.”


 
Oops. Looks like the graphs that you presented are in error and thus quite worthless:

No they arent they are multiple referenced at the foot of the page
Try harder

Taken from your own link this is an enormous validation of my position :ROFLMAO:

Thanks .....

Easterbrook’s-version-of-the-GISP2-based-temperature-reconstruction-graph.png
 
Last edited:
No they arent they are multiple referenced at the foot of the page
Try harder

Taken from your own link this is an enormous validation of my position :ROFLMAO:

Thanks .....

View attachment 67345831

Once again you did not even read my reply. The graph is in error for a couple of very basic reasons. Read the article, it will tell you why. The graph is worthless.
 
Once again you did not even read my reply. The graph is in error for a couple of very basic reasons. Read the article, it will tell you why. The graph is worthless.

So why did you post it given it fully validates my position As does Kobashi 2011, 2015 and 2019 ice core peer review studies from both poles ?

You couldnt make this up ! :LOL:
 
Last edited:
So why did you post it given it fully validates my position ?

You couldnt make this up ! :LOL:

Why did I post what? The article and the summary that I posted clearly INvalidate your graph. Do you have reading comprehension problems? Read it again. Carefully.
 
Actually, you have been shown empirical evidence that most of the warming is caused by man. But, you being a climate change denialist and all, you keep blocking that fact from your memory.

Here is just one time I cited some empirical evidence for all you denialists.


Oh, come on you two... I know for a fact that this new study has been recently discussed:

Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing
What about the "along with reduction in reflective aerosols" part in what you quoted? You cannot with any integrity, claim CO2 is the cause when the paper you use to support that contention does so with a second variable shared.

We have no way to claimn explicitly, that CO2 is the primary reason for increases we "observe."
 
Last edited:
What about the "along with reduction in reflective aerosols" part in what you quoted? You cannot with any integrity, claim CO2 is the cause when the paper you use to support that contention does so with a second variable shared.

We have no way to claimn explicitly, that CO2 is the primary reason for increases we "observe."
There has been an observed reduction in aerosols since the 1980s. We also know CO2 is not the primary reason for increases in either greenhouse gases or surface temperatures, but rather the effect of those changes. The greenhouse gas with the biggest effect on both surface temperatures and the climate, by far, is water vapor. But the AGW cultists pretend that water vapor doesn't exist because it is not a gas they think they can control.
 
Last edited:
That is not what that study shows. You obviously didn't read it. That study draws the conclusion that humanity MUST be the result of increasing temperatures because greenhouse gases have increased. They provide no evidence of any correlation between increasing greenhouse gases and humanity. They provide no "empirical evidence" whatsoever. They merely make the unfounded and unsupported claim with nothing to back it up.

We already know that atmospheric CO2 is not the cause, but rather the effect of increasing surface temperatures. Atmospheric surface temperatures increase first, followed 800 ± 200 years later by an increase in atmospheric CO2. Which means the increases in atmospheric CO2 we are observing today are the result of the Medieval Warming period that took place between 950 and 1250. There is absolutely nothing to link increases in any greenhouse gas to humanity or anything humanity has done. That is pure hubris.
My editing of two posts went wrong. I changed it. Thanks for pointing my mistake out before the edit timer expired.
 
Back
Top Bottom