97% of Climate Science papers show that humans are responsible for global warming.

That's why the head of East Anglia says there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years and the real data backs that up,right? And of course you dismiss the fact that the people that push man made climate change receive their money from governments that stand to make trillions in taxes from pushing the hoax.

 

The advocates of human-caused global warming prefer keeping the debate centered on whether the warming is real or imagined, and whether it is or is not caused by humans. That clouds the important issue, the one they try to avoid at all costs.

If you allow climate-change advocates their premise that global climate change is happening, and that it's human caused, the next questions are the really important ones. (1) At what point does climate change endanger human life, and to what extent? (2) What steps can humans take, IF any, such that the dangers are eliminated? GCC advocates will list their so-called "mitigation plans", but they have no clue to what degree those plans will achieve anything of significance. They'll be happy to destroy international economies by spending trillions of dollars on things that may well achieve NOTHING of value.

IF global warming is happening, and IF it's human caused, and IF the danger can be eliminated, there's only one way that will remove the danger. That way is to get rid of about half of the human population, and never allow the total population to increase to the exent it has! What will happen when this option is debated?

 

I'm not sure I have ever seen a strawman that big.

 

<<sigh>>
Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

Ya gotta stop swinging. You're not good enough to get a hit.

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and now Lies is all you have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

 

You are correct, denying the reality that "man made climate change" is a political hoax is getting more difficult for warmers. Especially when the facts continue to dispute the hoax.

 

Only if you do all of the following:
1. Ignore the 93% of warming that occurs in the ocean, and look only at surface temperatures;
2. Use only the HADCRUT4 dataset, which omits large parts of the Arctic, the fastest-warming place on Earth;
3. Use a 95% confidence interval;
and
4. Cherry-pick the beginning year to be at the top of the warmest El Niño ever recorded.

And even if you do all of that, you can also say, based on the very same data, that the upward temperature trend in the past 15 years is also not significantly different from the upward trend in the previous 15 years. In other words, no change to the upward trend is just as valid an interpretation as no change to the temperature. That's what happens when you look only at the very tail end of a noisy dataset.

"Stand to make trillions in taxes"? Gee, conspiracy theory much? Last time I looked, no government in the world needs a conspiracy theory to raise taxes.

So let's just assume you're right. Let's look at a piece of recent research funded by the oil-rich Koch brothers, and run by a scientist skeptical of the consensus. And guess what? The skeptical scientist did the research and it convinced him that the consensus was dead on correct: the globe is getting warmer.

 

Conspiracy theory? Really? The governments pushing the hoax are broke, The US is 17 trillion in debt. As for global warming, it's a nice theory, except that the planet is cooling. Remember, scientific "consensus" used to say that man couldn't go faster than the speed of sound.

 

What a load of utter tripe and garbage. The solution is simple: a per-capita rebated fossil carbon tax that's commensurate with the social cost of carbon. We simply price fossil carbon out of the energy market, and the problem is solved. By rebating the cost on a per-capita basis, individuals who use less fossil carbon make out well, while the gas guzzlers pay more. A big economic shift, but nobody gets impoverished.

 

Except that our entire economy is based on fossil fuels and there is no economically viable replacement at this time.

 

The real data shows the planet is cooling. not my fault if it contradicts your religion.

 

What do you consider to be "real data"?

 

Data that hasn't been run thru the filter of the political agenda.

 

If you think so, you should tell us exactly what each mitigation plan will achieve, and what the combined effects of those plans will be.

Talk about "a load of utter tripe and garbage", read the above words! The poster tells us that the entire problem he says we face can be solved simply by eliminating fossil fuels. Human beings use energy, and we create CO2 by our very existence. The poster believes that windmills and solar energy will solve such a big problem??? Not likely! The poster needs to think beyond the end of his nose...... except perhaps for his choice of a username. It's quite appropriate.

 

It's not the carbon cycle that's the problem, it's the fossil carbon we're adding to the carbon cycle. So yes, fossil fuels are the entire problem. Exhalation doesn't count.

Ooooo. Can't refute my actual position, so you just make up a position I don't actually hold, and argue against that instead? That, my friend, is a classing example of using a strawman. Looks like raytri has you pegged.

Since you're currently losing a debate to a poor debater, I guess that makes you just totally incompetent.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you give even a single example of this unicorn?

 

Cute words, but you're still losing the debate. You are claiming that by ridding the earth of the use of fossil fuels, the supposed danger of global warming and/or climate change will go away. You've not even begun to support that claim! You're simply stating it as Fact. You've not provided any conclusion about what the extremes of the supposed danger of gcc or warming will be on humanity. You tell us it's dangerous, but you have no clue as to the extent of the danger. Additionally, you've provided NO details on what other forms of energy can be effectively utilized such that the need for fossil fuels goes away!

As for the effects of worldwide population increases, it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to recognize the potential dangers. People need food. Food requires fertile areas in which to plant and raise food. The additional population requires "area" in which to live. Trees and forests will have to be removed, farmland will become more valuable as building acreage, and far more Energy will be needed to support the increased population.

Tell us again that the entire problem is one of fossil-fuel use. If you do tell us that again, be sure to tell us what will replace it that will also be capable of supporting the radically-increasing demand for energy! Your screen name still looks appropriate to me.

 

Au contraire. It seems you cannot remember as far back as one day ago. YOU were the one who falsely claimed:

In other words, YOU were the one who assumed, as part of YOUR argument, that global warming IS happening, and IS caused by humans, and that the danger CAN be eliminated. I merely accepted YOUR premise, and proceeded to show that your conclusion from that premise is utterly and totally wrong.

Because, obviously, there are very more ways than just one of eliminating the danger of climate change, and nearly all of them do not involve wiping out half of humanity, as you falsely claim.

Of course, if you NOW wish to admit that either your premise or your conclusion were totally false and bogus, be my guest. In which case, you lose and I win. Or, if you NOW don't wish to defend your indefensible conclusions at all -- which is totally understandable under the circumstances -- then also, be my guest. In which case, I also win.

Not really necessary to my argument, since if fossil fuel were priced out of the market, it would go away all by itself. Fossil loses, and all non-fossil energy sources win. As I'm sure you know, there is not a single form of fossil energy that has no non-fossil replacement. The only reason fossil hasn't been replaced is cost. Therefore pricing fossil out of the market works. (And when did conservatives lose faith in the market economy?)

Not necessarily true, since yields per hectare continue growing. And population growth rate keeps declining. And land use changes are a bit player in climate change. What's NOT declining, at least so far, is global fossil fuel use.

Okay. The entire problem is fossil-fuel use.

Gee, the only energy sector that is "radically increasing" over the last ten years has been renewables. I guess that wasn't reported on Fox News.

 

Tsk, tsk.

That's a matter of time scale. It's actually cooling right now because of the time of year: the earth is nearly at its greatest distance from the sun. It's warming on a scale of centuries because of the rebound from the Little Ice Age and the extraordinary high in solar activity over the last 150 years or so, which hasn't been seen in at least 2000 years. It's cooling on a scale of millions of years since the Ice Ages began, apparently due mainly to the distribution of continental land masses and how they affect solar heating of the earth and ocean currents. CO2 from burning fossil fuels may be all that's stopping a return of the glaciers, which would normally be happening around now. File an environmental impact statement on that.

 

WOW, you decide to quote every line and not even debate it? Nice way to show your intentions..

I had to do some work and haven't been able to come back here until now.

Let's start with your claim about air.. Air in the atmosphere or trapped in to high a quantity is a lousy insulator. Previously when I said air you and the brigade came after me claiming all sorts of things that block convection show air to be a good insulator, completely ignoring the fact that by "Air" I was referring to the air in the atmosphere and under normal atmospheric conditions. So, lets first assume you are right about air. The ability of air to insulate is directly related to space and density correct? I mean earlier it was your contention and so we assume you still feel that way?

Air minus space in which to move away from a heat source (convection) and distance between molecules to prevent conduction when they bump into one another in their excited state (heat), makes for a good insulator. That seems a fair assessment of your claims so far.

So in addressing this in context with the previous and bigger point of AGW theory, where the atmosphere is warmed by the heat from the planets surface which warms the GH gases and the gases send IR (heat) radiation back to the surface warming the surface further, I ask you one question..

IF the theory is correct then how is it that atmospheric GH gases are at both times a great insulator (inhibiting heat loss)and a great emitter of heat? If it can near losslessly transfer heat from a source internally and then instantaneously re-radiate that heat back towards it's warmer source as well as towards outer space, how can it be insulating from that energy loss at the same time?

Is it an insulator due to its inherent properties of heat capture, absorption, re-radiation, or is it simply because as one other poster stated earlier, that it is more like a vacum and the distance between the molecules are indeed the root of its insulating properties? Well I chose the second of the two, but you seem to take the first. So Again, how is it able to be both a great insulator and great emitter at the same time? Well according to science it can't...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation

But hey I'm sure you know that... LOL, so getting back to the point. All the single line quotes in the world will not help you here. The fact is you are defying the laws of nature and in your desperation to appear "winning" at any cost, you have unwittingly gotten yourself into a conundrum where you are proclaiming a good emitter is also a good insulator. And all because you confuse the gaseous nature of air in our atmosphere (relatively large "empty" spaces between molecules) with actual insulating properties of the molecules themselves. In other words, you attribute the nature of thermal transfer in a solid object with that of a gas, and assumed they were the same.. They aren't.. Sorry..

Now please quote each sentence again, so we can see your methods again... LOL

 

Oh good another "quote every line and smother debate" monkey.. Love it...

and your analogy of the atmosphere blocking convection wasn't addressing my point at all was it... No of course not. The atmosphere as a whole does not block convection. The reason we have convection is because of the atmosphere. No air, no ability convection, simple really..

 

Earth reaches aphelion in July, not May. The seasonal variation is far greater than eccentricity effects.

I suppose you're going to claim that this rebound just by miraculous coincidence started right at the same time we started burning fossil fuels ...

The high solar activity in the mid 20th century didn't exceed 18th or 19th century maxima until around 1940. Solar activity peaked in about 1958, and has been declining irregularly since then. Most of that activity has been contra-climate.

You omitted the large effect of continental drift on volcanic activity and hence the amount of CO2 in the air. I assume your omission was from ignorance rather than agenda-pushing political spin.

That's quite a claim, considering that global glaciation is triggered by orbital forcing, which can be (and has been) computed for thousands of years into the past and future. I think I'm gonna have to ask for a citation for that claim, Roy. Archer & Ganopolski 2005 determined that the next glaciation (absent anthro effects) isn't due for another 50,000 years. That's because we're in a period in which both orbital eccentricity and axial inclination are declining, leading to less severe seasonal effects. Frankly, I think it's kind of bizarre that you think it's perfectly OK to fry civilization for the next 50,000 years so that these next two or three generations can pay less at the gas pump. What's your take on the ethics of that?

 

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how the greenhouse effect works. The insulating properties of air play no part. It is the radiative properties, and ONLY the radiative properties, that are important.

According to Kirchoff's Law, the radiative emissivity of any substance must be equal to its radiative absorptivity. Anything that absorbs a lot (at a given wavelength) also emits a lot (at the same wavelength). CO2 (and any other greenhouse gas) is transparent to visible light (where the Sun radiates) but absorbs in the infrared (where the Earth radiates). As the level of CO2 in the air rises, it absorbs more and more of the infrared that the earth radiates, preventing that energy from reaching space. Nearly all of that absorbed energy is re-radiated, but since it can be re-radiated in any direction, half of it comes back down to the surface. Which means that as CO2 rises, the amount of down-welling radiation increases, which slows down the loss of heat at the surface -- especially at night, when radiation is the primary means of energy loss. So the surface is warmer than it would have been when the Sun rises the next day.

Thermal insulation plays no part in the greenhouse effect. It is a radiative effect only. The absorption and re-radiation of surface IR isn't entirely lossless: some of that energy is absorbed by CO2 as heat. But most is re-radiated.

Really? Which ones?

That's entirely possible, and does not violate any laws of nature. Thermal insulation and photon absorptivity are entirely different effects, with different causes, so they aren't related. Some things (like nitrogen) are poor emitters of IR, poor absorbers of IR, and good thermal insulators. CO2 is also a good thermal insulator, but it is a good emitter and absorber of IR. But since thermal insulation plays no part of the greenhouse effect anyway, it's a moot point.

They're exactly the same, and measured in exactly the same units.

 

LOL, thanks for the lesson on greenhouse effect but we know that already. And when were you going to address the point you cited? I'll ask it again.."IF the theory is correct then how is it that atmospheric GH gases are at both times a great insulator (inhibiting heat loss)and a great emitter of heat?"

See that's the question I asked, explaining greenhouse theory to me doesn't address the question, all it did was allow us all to watch you dance and divert.. So stop the pretense now, it's seen and acknowledged for what it is. Now please if you can answer for this obvious problem in your logic please do so.. Ah, minus the circle talk this time if you please...

Your next single line quote response was brilliant.. Truly...

"Thermal insulation plays no part in the greenhouse effect. It is a radiative effect only. The absorption and re-radiation of surface IR isn't entirely lossless: some of that energy is absorbed by CO2 as heat. But most is re-radiated."

LOL,thermal insulation plays no part in the greenhouse effect? Exactly how is that when by your previous claim, air ( what the atmosphere is made of) is as you claimed a good insulator? A good insulator is a poor emitter, remember? Again we see you talking in a circle and not saying anything of substance on the matter. And of course it's a "radiative matter" all radiative heat transfer is a radiative matter silly man..LOL

Wait it gets better...

"That's entirely possible, and does not violate any laws of nature. Thermal insulation and photon absorptivity are entirely different effects, with different causes, so they aren't related. Some things (like nitrogen) are poor emitters of IR, poor absorbers of IR, and good thermal insulators. CO2 is also a good thermal insulator, but it is a good emitter and absorber of IR. But since thermal insulation plays no part of the greenhouse effect anyway, it's a moot point."

ROFL, no idea what a conundrum is I see? Well one explanation would be a difficult situation. Like the one you are in now... I love the use of nonsense here.. bravo! In all of that you said nothing that explains your previous claim. All you did was restate the claim in different words and then again claim that thermal insulation plays no part in greenhouse effect... LOL,okay if you say so, but it does have an effect in our atmosphere despite the claims of GH theory stating that GH gases are good enough emitters of IR to effect warming of their source of heat.. So again, is it a good emitter or a good insulator? Experiments through out history have shown a good emitter is a poor insulator, because the very nature of the two oppose one another. You keep the pretense that GH theory is fact, yet you deny the problems like this one in it. It's a theory not a fact, and you're circle talk doesn't help matters...

And as if it couldn't be any better...

"They're exactly the same, and measured in exactly the same units."

Really??? LOL,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer

Seems you are again trying to mislead and misrepresent things here, either that or you just don't understand it... You just tried to claim that the process of measuring thermal transfer in a gas and a solid are the same. Really? well then explain this..

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~allan/heat_trans/page4/page4f.html

Seems there are separate equations for each manner of thermal transfer.. Oh wait! you said "measured in exactly the same units" .. Were you trying to imply that the use of the same unit of measure makes the process of measuring those units the exact same???? LOL, sure you were, you either didn't know the difference or didn't think anyone else would.. LOL

Wow man, seriously.. You just keep on quoting each line and show your nature and methods. Soon enough, your facade will crumble and people will notice what you are doing for what it is.. A horse and pony show, all flash no substance, just like here where you spent most of the post saying nothing..LOL

 

I do enjoy watching Poor Debater expose your foolishness, but I'd like to add, in as simple terms as possible (as Poor Debater already tried to explain and went right over your head):
absorption / emission - radiative properties
insulation - thermal property

 

LOL...And we see you repeating his nonsense,expected...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_properties

And ....Infra-red radiation is heat silly person. Thermal properties as in thermal conductivity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity

So again, you two are spouting nonsense... A thermal property of a body emitting heat is a radiative property. Just as a radiative property of a body emitting heat (IR radiation) is a thermal property.. jesus man, he spouts nonsense and you repeat it no matter how ignorant it is...ROFL

 

Yeaaaaah! I didn't think it would sink in. Good luck.
Serious suggestion: take a physics course for Liberal Arts Majors. Your lack of any desire to learn and your (mis)understanding of physics is too great to correct on a forum.