Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

Feb 5, 2013 Full story: Verde Independent 1,644

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Full Story

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#618 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Again your ridiculous standard. How about experiments showing that CO2 levels affect the temperature in a system with incoming light in the visible wavelengths and outgoing light in the infrared? That is a well tested fact.
Those experiments have been done in the lab, they show far lower 'climate' sensitivity to CO2 than the IPPC's most benign estimate.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Ergo, if you change CO2 concentration, you will change temperature in the atmosphere, subject to potential positive and negative feedbacks.
OK, how about citing any experiment that shows a man made change in atmospheric CO2, release or capture some CO2 and show a corresponding change in the atmosphere from the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. That experiment hasn't been done either.

It's easy to write "if you change CO2 concentration" but so far that's been impossible to do experimentally in the atmosphere.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
You have already admitted to accepting this, on the basic that you know that additional CO2 has progressively less effect as concentration increases. Therefore you acknowledge that the effect is real.
The effect is real but the lack of experimental evidence indicates the effect of man made CO2 emissions are insignificant.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#619 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Which is why I do not advocate extreme solutions involving restrictions on fossil fuel production. Just sensible solutions involving gradual replacement the most intense emitters with lower and non-emitting energy sources.
You live in Dubai, no wonder you don't want to restrict fossil fuel production. I'll bet you wouldn't mind a new tax on fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels are vital commodities so a new tax would only raise their price making more profits for those with stockpiles.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Face the facts. While a large part of US innovation has come from the private sector, a large part has also come from government sponsored R&D and in military innovation where the government was the only customer and there is hardly a "market" in any real sense.
Maybe that's how the 'free market' works in the UAE, in the USA the government doesn't drive innovation or markets.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
If you want to champion the free market, perhaps you should start by acknowledging that all subsidies and concessions on oil and coal should be removed immediately.
Remove all subsidies from green energy too; that's only fair. I'm against raising taxes. Why don't you tell us which 'subsidies' you're writing about.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Your country has bankrupted itself on military adventures
We were attacked on 9/11; that will not stand. We defeated the Taliban government and established a new government in Afghanistan that won't tolerate the terrorists.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
whose primary goal is securing the stability of oil producers because you need them. This is also an oil subsidy.
US policy is freedom of the seas. Chimney calls that an oil subsidy and I call that a peace subsidy; this is where we differ.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Yet this was not funded by a tax on oil, but on general taxation and borrowing. Meanwhile, you ignore the bloated military spending while blaming the country's financial state on a few moochers collecting food stamps. Its a joke.
We're still at war in Afghanistan; I oppose any cuts in military spending that would endanger the lives of our troops.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
If you want to argue based on the excellent founding principles of your country, great. But be consistent.
Understand, Dubai doesn't have 'excellent founding principles', it has a tyrant.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#620 Mar 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Where did you go to school? Did you go to school?
I choose not to disclose personal information.

.
ChristineM wrote:
First I suggest you look up the meaning of arithmetic progression. Hint, it does NOT mean subtraction
Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Then I suggest you take a short 101 course on chemistry H2C03 IS NOT C02
If CO2 is disolved in water, you get H2C03; that's how Svante Arrhenius determined the greenhouse effect. If H2CO3 warms, it emits CO2 out of solution.

.
ChristineM wrote:
As for self limiting, I suggest you take a trip to Venus and take a look how self limiting it is thereÖ
You buy, I'll fly.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#621 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those experiments have been done in the lab, they show far lower 'climate' sensitivity to CO2 than the IPPC's most benign estimate.
Those experiments show only the warming due to CO2: you have to add onto that feedback effects.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#622 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I choose not to disclose personal information.
We already know, you're a college drop out.
Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.
There's enough carbon in the ground to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere twice and cause disastrous global warming.

You're a college drop out pitching to the same or lower level of scientific understanding, the endless repetition is to find as many gullible ignorant people as possible. A mob of idiots can cause a lot of damage, where one alone can't.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#623 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.
Although this argument sounds vaguely convincing, is an important point to make.

It has not convinced the scientific community.

For good reason.
So if we continue in a business-as-usual scenario, we should expect to see atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate rapidly enough to more than offset the logarithmic relationship with temperature, and cause the surface temperature warming to accelerate as well. Monckton's claim of a "straight line" increase in global temperature ignores that in his preferred 'business as usual' scenario, we are currently on pace to double the current atmospheric CO2 concentration (390 to 780 ppmv) within the next 60 to 80 years, and we have not yet even come close to doubling the pre-industrial concentration (280 ppmv) in the past 150 years. Thus the exponential increase in CO2 will outpace its logarithmic relationship with surface temperature, causing global warming to accelerate unless we take serious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, to continue the current rate of warming over the 21st Century, we would need to achieve IPCC scenario B1 - a major move away from fossil fuels toward alternative and renewable energy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#624 Mar 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Those experiments show only the warming due to CO2: you have to add onto that feedback effects.
Can you cite an experimental test on climate feedback in the atmosphere?

To alarmists, the untested trumps reason.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#625 Mar 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Although this argument sounds vaguely convincing, is an important point to make. It has not convinced the scientific community. For good reason.[URL deleted]
It sounds convincing because its true, each molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less effect than the previous molecule added.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#626 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It sounds convincing because its true, each molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less effect than the previous molecule added.
It's just not a reason to think global warming won't be risky.

It's not an argument you'll find in the scientific literature because it's stupid.

It's an argument found on blogs and Internet sites written by non scientists, used by charlatans and of course, trolls.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#627 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
It's just not a reason to think global warming won't be risky. It's not an argument you'll find in the scientific literature because it's stupid. It's an argument found on blogs and Internet sites written by non scientists, used by charlatans and of course, trolls.
Life is risky. We have the technology to adapt to climate change; that's been experimentally tested. We don't have the technology to mitigate climate change, there's no published experiment that shows climate change mitigation is possible.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#628 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Life is risky. We have the technology to adapt to climate change; that's been experimentally tested. We don't have the technology to mitigate climate change, there's no published experiment that shows climate change mitigation is possible.
CO2 cause warming. Experimentally proven.

Emitting less CO2 cause less warming.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#629 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
CO2 cause warming. Experimentally proven.
There's no experiment showing man made CO2 changing climate temperature. We have small scale lab experiments that show the greenhouse effect but no field experiments of that phenomenon.

.
Fair Game wrote:
Emitting less CO2 cause less warming.
Another untested theory, there's no test showing taking CO2 from the atmosphere or emitting less or more CO2 causing any climate change.

The experimental record tells me, the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic CO2 is so weak it must be insignificant.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#630 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no experiment showing man made CO2 changing climate temperature.
Yes there is.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#631 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Yes there is.[URL deleted]
There isn't.

The experiment refers to all CO2, "the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." The experiment doesn't test the effect of just anthropogenic CO2.

We can't control CO2 emissions from geological sources or from the oceans. CO2 makes our planet habitable; without CO2 in the air, we would all die.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#632 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't.
There is.

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...
1 post removed

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#634 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You live in Dubai, no wonder you don't want to restrict fossil fuel production. I'll bet you wouldn't mind a new tax on fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels are vital commodities so a new tax would only raise their price making more profits for those with stockpiles.
No, as a Westerner I would be happy for this region to make less on fossil fuels - dollars extracted from western countries among others. That is a point I made earlier.
...in the USA the government doesn't drive innovation or markets.
Man that is dumb. What gave massive impetus to innovation in aircraft, digital computing, even teflon...what caused the foundation of the internet? Who built the interstate highway system? Hoover Dam? GPS?

You are reciting an ideological mantra, not a reflection of the actual facts of innovation. Its always been a mixed bag of public and private investment.
Remove all subsidies from green energy too; that's only fair.
Great. You first. No subsidies on fossil fuels.
We were attacked on 9/11; that will not stand. We defeated the Taliban government and established a new government in Afghanistan that won't tolerate the terrorists.
Yeah right. Lets see how long that lasts. Afghans who benefited from the US invasion are scrambling to get their money and families out while they can. I know them. You have not even scratched the surface of Afghan society's barbarous roots. Karzai is a warlord.

China builds super rail and infrastructure at home. The USA wastes its time trying to reform the unwilling overseas at great expense and the lives of brave soldiers, while letting its infrastructure at home fall apart. Who does the future belong to?
We're still at war in Afghanistan; I oppose any cuts in military spending that would endanger the lives of our troops.
You can stay at war in Afghanistan for another generation. It wont help. Or you can save the lives of your troops by bringing them home.

I don't care to defend Dubai. I am a visitor here.

I am more concerned about the erosion of liberties and freedom in the West, in the name of fear. Cowards are never free for long.

Get real. The death toll even for 9/11 was about 1 month's worth of the road death toll. Not trivialising - putting in perspective. The USA is not under the threat posed by the Nazis or the Communists. Has trillions wasted made you more secure?

The threat now is preserving something worth defending. Your own govt agencies are running amok smothering everyone while you still prattle about freedom. Fix your own house.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#635 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those experiments have been done in the lab, they show far lower 'climate' sensitivity to CO2 than the IPPC's most benign estimate.
True. But you think its OK to simply ignore the feedback on water vapour and methane levels?
The effect is real but the lack of experimental evidence indicates the effect of man made CO2 emissions are insignificant.
Although the rise in average temperatures in lock step with CO2 over the last 150 years can also be ignored? Consider it a real time experiment.

Funny how you don't want to waste a few billion on "untested" innovation but seem happy that your government has wasted 2 trillion on unsuccessful social engineering experiments with Muslims, not to mention the lives of many brave soldiers.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#636 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I choose not to disclose personal information.
.
<quoted text> Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.
.
<quoted text>If CO2 is disolved in water, you get H2C03; that's how Svante Arrhenius determined the greenhouse effect. If H2CO3 warms, it emits CO2 out of solution.
.
<quoted text>You buy, I'll fly.
So you didnít go to school, fair enough, now we know where we stand with you.

Yes 1 and 1 makes 2, very clever of you to suss that out, however several million plus several million makes a lot of millions. Have you ever considered slump? Yes itís a real word, look it up. Pile up a heap of sand until just before that sand begins to slide. Then add 1 grain (just 1) and watch the pile collapse. The measure of itís collapse is the slump.

However you were not discussing CO2 you stated a law applying to H2C03. What happens before are after it is H2CO3 is irrelevant to that one grain of sand

Pay for you own trip, one way would save you money.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#637 Mar 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
So you didnít go to school, fair enough, now we know where we stand with you.
I didn't write I didn't go to school, I refused to disclose my CV. I'd recommend all posters take care when disclosing information about themselves or other people.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Yes 1 and 1 makes 2, very clever of you to suss that out, however several million plus several million makes a lot of millions.
Still, addition is different from geometric progression, as CO2 doubles, temperature increases arithmetically so it takes more CO2 emissions to create the same warming as we go along.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Have you ever considered slump? Yes itís a real word, look it up. Pile up a heap of sand until just before that sand begins to slide. Then add 1 grain (just 1) and watch the pile collapse. The measure of itís collapse is the slump.
Are you talking about feedback? If there's one area in climate science with even less experimental testing than CO2's greenhouse gas effect, that would be climate feedback.

.
ChristineM wrote:
However you were not discussing CO2 you stated a law applying to H2C03. What happens before are after it is H2CO3 is irrelevant to that one grain of sand Pay for you own trip, one way would save you money.
When carbon dioxide dissolves in water it exists in chemical equilibrium producing carbonic acid

CO2 + H2O = H2CO4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

"On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4į; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8į."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
litesong

Everett, WA

#638 Mar 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
So you didnít go to school
Unlike dirtling, who never got a hi skule DEE-plooomaa,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' did get a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa(which it is very proud of).'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' never took upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc & never got any further science or mathematics education......which accounts for its poor math attempts, compiled in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has not attempted further math calculations in 1 to 1.5 years.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dems call GOP Homeland Security strategy a poli... 3 min goonsquad 16
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min OzRitz 51,414
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Bluestater 1,190,352
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 min wtf 171,938
Prominent Russian opposition figure Boris Nemts... 9 min kuda 18
Cruz tells anti-tax group 'No' to Common Core i... 12 min Le Duped 11
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 12 min Agents of Corruption 312,616
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 16 min Mykro 524
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 23 min goonsquad 1,795
More from around the web