Putting aside the debate about whether AGW is real or not, what is the solution to climate change? (interview, politicians)

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

For the purposes of this thread, AGW is real and it's reality goes unchallenged.

TRANSLATION: We're going to set up a thread based on falsehoods so we can more easily pretend they're true, and so we won't have to deal with pesky facts like the complete lack of proof man is affecting the climate.

For our next trick, we're going to set up a thread based on the idea that the Earth is flat, so we don't have to explain how satellites orbit, photos from the moon show it's round, and ships' sails disappear over the horizon as they sail away.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Montroller

Please learn the difference between the Fahrenheit scale and Celsius scale and how to convert between the two.

Climate scientists are concerned about a .5°C, 1.5°C and 2°C rise in global temps. Not a 1°F rise.

You need to practice what you preach, and to do that, you'll need to go back and re-do high school.

0.5°C = 0.9°F

1.5°C = 2.7°F

2.0°C = 3.6°F

1.0°F = 0.55°C

A 1.0°F increase in global temperatures equals a 0.55°C increase in global temperatures.

Your knowledge on the matter is incredibly lacking.

If I recall, you're the one claimed AGW was a "strawman" [sic] and that scientists do not use the term, and then when I posted a statement from the Imperial Grand Kleagle Wizard James Hansen who used the term AGW, you ran away.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Montroller

I note desperation to be retreading that old one.

Try here


And here


For what it's worth....England's climate today is far more conducive to growing grapes for the wine industry than at any point in recorded history.

I note you cannot tell the difference between the Roman Period and the Medieval Period.

This is your link: Medieval warmth and English wine

I never said squat about Medieval Britain, but I guess you're desperate enough to try to claim the Romans were still around in the Medieval Period.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by natalie469

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I'm still hopeful though. But eventually the human race will be wiped out by the extreme weather.

Originally Posted by my54ford

More extreme than the ice age You know the one homo sapiens developed and thrived in?

What did you expect? Some people actually believe it was Sunny and 72°F for the whole of Earth's existence.

Originally Posted by Zoisite

If some selfish people don't like it and refuse to control their inconsiderate behaviour towards society then they have chosen to be criminals and that's when the rule of law must step in to take control of them and take away their continued ability to be criminals towards the rest of society/civilization.

So, a woman in Burkina Faso is an inconsiderate criminal, because she has 9 children?

How's that work exactly?

Her husband cannot tend their fields of tarot every day, because he has to walk to other villages, some of which are several hours away, in order to sell/trade his goods for the things his family needs.

Her oldest son tends the tarot crop in his father's stead. The oldest daughter tends the goat herds, so they can have goat milk, and goat meat and sell/trade goats for things they need. The mother and younger children spend 4 hours each day walking to a river to get water.

How exactly are they being inconsiderate or criminals?

They're not consuming any oil, natural gas or coal. They're not consuming metals and minerals, either, unless you want to get totally bent out of shape over his using an iron hoe to tend his fields.

Their world does not intersect anywhere with your world, so it's not like they're taking anything from you.

Originally Posted by waltcolorado

Here is another denial argument that I see made that is either amateur or intentionally deceptive.

That is that CO2 level increases in the past have always been delayed from temperature rises. Temperature rise happens first and is followed by a CO2 rise.

So CO2 always follows temperature.

That's true. All you have to do is look at the EPICA Ice Core Data.

Since I already gave you the data sources for EPICA Ice Core Data on another thread, it's more than apparent that you live in abject total fear of Truth and are totally afraid to graph the data yourself.

These graphs prove temperature causes CO2 levels to increase, and CO2 levels do not cause temperature increases.

If, as you and so many others claim, CO2 causes temperatures to increase, then Inter-Glacial Periods should never end. Earth should continually warm, but that has never happened.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Montroller

LOL you have failed to follow me pointing our your error in thinking.

Your claim was worrying about a 1°F rise. I simply pointed out that no one in science is worried about a 1°F rise in global temps.

We are worried about a 1.5°C to 2°C rise in global temps.

Since 1°F= -17.2°C this is a rather nonsensical thing to state. Since -17.2°C is not a rise in temp it's a decrease with respect the Celsius scale which is the scale us scientists use.

Please learn the difference between the Fahrenheit scale and Celsius scale and how to convert between the two.

Climate scientists are concerned about a .5°C, 1.5°C and 2°C rise in global temps. Not a 1°F rise.

Originally Posted by Mircea

You need to practice what you preach, and to do that, you'll need to go back and re-do high school.

0.5°C = 0.9°F

1.5°C = 2.7°F

2.0°C = 3.6°F

1.0°F = 0.55°C

A 1.0°F increase in global temperatures equals a 0.55°C increase in global temperatures.

Your knowledge on the matter is incredibly lacking.

If I recall, you're the one claimed AGW was a "strawman" [sic] and that scientists do not use the term, and then when I posted a statement from the Imperial Grand Kleagle Wizard James Hansen who used the term AGW, you ran away.

mircea is right, your conversions below are right, sort of. you are equating the actual temperature conversion factor to the increase in temperature, and that is where you are making your mistake.


so for instance, yes 1.5 degrees c does equal 34.7 degrees F, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE INDICATED TEMPERATURE. however when talking about the increase in temperature, you have to apply the increase in temperature, BEFORE making the conversion, which you are not doing. you keep failing at this.

Originally Posted by Montroller

I think it's you that needs to go back to high school and re-learn basic math skills.

The temperature T in degrees Celsius (°C) is equal to the temperature T in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) minus 32, times 5/9:
Wrong

.5°C×9/5+32 = 32.9°F
Wrong

1.5°C×9/5+32 = 34.7°F
Wrong

2.0°C×9/5+32 = 35.6°F
Wrong

(1°F-32)×5/9= -17.222222222°C
Wrong


55°C×9/5+32= 131°F
Sure go right ahead and keep telling yourself this. It's clear who's knowledge the matter is incredibly lacking. Not one of your posts demonstrates knowledge on the matter.
When deniers use it...it is always used to make straw-man arguments.

I never ran away. The thread was locked thus I could not respond.

[waltcolorado]

So CO2 always follows temperature.
That's true. All you have to do is look at the EPICA Ice Core Data.

You are missing (maybe denying at this point) the simple concept that CO2 can be both feedback and forcing. The ice core data shows the feedback aspect of CO2. We both agree on that.

But I think you are missing the very simple concept that CO2 can also be a forcing mechanism.

If you simply add CO2 to the atmosphere, it will cause the temperature to rise because it will trap heat. Very simple concept. Ie, the temperature rise will follow the CO2 increase in concentration.

By saying CO2 always follows temperature (which is the way CO2 as feedback works), you are ignoring or denying that CO2 can be a forcing function. Just not true.

Here are some links that agree with what I am saying, and also do NOT agree with what you are saying. This is a simple concept.. odd that we are even discussing this.

I appreciate that you usually show references, do you have any that says CO2 always follows temperature and I guess that it can not cause a temperature rise by forcing a concentration increase?

Here are some references since I have asked you to provide any at all.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/

While the lag between temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the paleoclimate record is important in understanding the function of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s climate, and has helped in estimating the effects of CO2 concentrations on radiative forcing, it in no way discredits the conventional knowledge that CO2 is forcing recent changes in the Earth’s climate.

It’s crucial that media reporting on climate change understand an important distinction between the dual roles of greenhouse gases as both forcing and feedback

As Eric Steig, a geochemist at the University of Washington who works extensively with ice cores, remarks, “the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature”.

Here are few more links that mention CO2 as a forcing function where if you increase CO2 concentration, you increase temp. The temperature rise follows the increase in CO2.


https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/c...k-sensitivity/

FYI,

If, as you and so many others claim, CO2 causes temperatures to increase, then Inter-Glacial Periods should never end. Earth should continually warm, but that has never happened.

It is your conclusion that if CO2 causes temperature to increase, the Inter-glacier periods should never end. I dont think its correct, this can be explained (which we can look into after you find a link that agrees with your conclusion). Maybe you can find someone that agrees with you but I dont think so.. You should note that the conclusion you made is your own.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Montroller

You have no idea what you are talking about.


All I am doing is converting F° to C° using the only equation known to do so. (32°F − 32) × 5/9 = 0°C

Or converting C° to °F (0°C × 9/5) + 32 = 32°F

I am astounded at the lack of basic math skills and conversion knowledge displayed both you and mircea.

sorry but YOU are the one missing the basic math skills. you are equating a 1.5 degree C increase in temperature, and using the WRONG conversion to do it. 1.5C increase in temperature does NOT equate to a 34.7F increase in temperature. the key word here is INCREASE. so your ignorance is showing in how it is actually done here.


as i noted before if the temperature is 30 C which equals 86 F, and you INCREASE the temp by 1.5 C, you get 30 +1.5= 31.5 C which equate to 88.7 F, an increase of 2.7 degrees F.



once again i suggest you try again. perhaps a little reading comprehension would be of benefit for you?

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Montroller

You have no idea what you are talking about.

All I am doing is converting F° to C° using the only equation known to do so. (32°F − 32) × 5/9 = 0°C

Or converting C° to °F (0°C × 9/5) + 32 = 32°F

I am astounded at the lack of basic math skills and conversion knowledge displayed both you and mircea.

Let's do the math using mircea's numbers shall we?

mircea stated this 0.5°C = 0.9°F

Lets do the math shall we? .5°C×9/5+32 = 32.9°F



Simply plug and chug into the conversion formula above for converting °C to °F. (0°C × 9/5) + 32 = 32°F)

.5°C x 1.8 +32 = 32.9°F

That's how to convert .5°C to °F.

once again you are showing the basic conversion formula, you are NOT showing the proper way to show the INCREASE in temperature. do yourself a favor, before continuing to make a fool of yourself, go talk to your math teacher, and have them explain how to show the increase in temperature. maybe they can do it better than any of us here since you might actually LISTEN to them.


and by the way, i know the conversion formula, but i also have a conversion app on my phone so i can check things like this quickly. for instance i can tell you that 31.5 C = 88.7 F = 304.65 kelvin = 548.37rankine = 25.2 reaumur. so go talk to your math teacher and have them educate you on how to properly calculate temperature increases.


and by the way, i had to take both chemistry and physics as part of my degree program. i know what i am talking about here.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Montroller

Please learn the basic temperature conversions.

T(°C) = (T(°F) - 32) × 5/9


T(°F) = T(°C) × 9/5 + 32

I TOLD YOU I ALREADY KNOW THEM. what i am telling is to learn how to calculate the actual increase in temperature, and going from one temperature measurement to another. but if you continue to be obstinate about it, i will end up ignoring you, and letting you continue to make a fool of yourself.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Montroller

I think you are very confused.

The conversion formulas are only used to convert from one temperature scale to anther. That's all they are used for.

.5°C does not equal .9°F as mircea stated.

.5°C = 32.9°F

I have no idea why you are struggling with this.

WE ARE NOT STRUGGLING HERE, YOU ARE. and that is because we are talking about the INCREASE in temperature, and not the temperature itself.



going from 30 C to 30.5 C, the .5 degree C increase you are talking about is the SAME as going from 86 F to 86.9 F the .9 F INCREASE e are talking about. please stop making a fool of yourself.