• 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!

2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

Mithros said:
Then you assume that climate scientists are a monolithic block driven by a singular ideology.
Click to expand...
I've addressed by beliefs on this several times. I only think a few of them actively participate in any falsehoods. However, these same ones shape what is taught about climate in the universities. I think the majority of climate scientists believe what they say, because they use the methodology taught.

It would be a great help to have an open peer review process, rather than the close reviews they use. I

t would be helpful to listen more to those who's credentials sit squarely on radiative physics, rather than the incomplete teachings required for climatology.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Actually, as I have stated, I knew there is lag involved. Not certain how much effect takes place at what lag time, but if the sun stays the same as the last 30 or so year average, I expect this to be our normal temperature. Peaks and dips from here. However, if the sun continues to becline in output through cycle 25, I expect the global temperatures will be reduced.

Hold this as record for the next 20 years, if we are both around you can see if I'm right.

I do believe the solar scientists predicting these events to be correct. However, unlike you warmers, I don't have the faith to state it as fact.
Click to expand...

Us "warmers" aren't declaring what the sun will or will not do, no. Maybe this helps explain some of you denial cultists not understanding climate models.
 
Deuce said:
Us "warmers" aren't declaring what the sun will or will not do, no. Maybe this helps explain some of you denial cultists not understanding climate models.
Click to expand...
Yes I know. That's because you leave it out of the equation, denying real science.
 
Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post

DaveFagan"CO2 is one thing. Why not turn down the heat?"
Planar"I would agree with you if I thought it had a larger impact. "

Just calculate all the btus wasted to lost heat in all the coal, oil, gas, nuke, wood, other biomass, etc. processes and you'll have a clue.
 
DaveFagan said:
Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post

DaveFagan"CO2 is one thing. Why not turn down the heat?"
Planar"I would agree with you if I thought it had a larger impact. "

Just calculate all the btus wasted to lost heat in all the coal, oil, gas, nuke, wood, other biomass, etc. processes and you'll have a clue.
Click to expand...

What percentage of the 89 petawatts is it that the earth absorbs from the sun?
 
Is this a crisis of warming or is it not? If it's a crisis of warming, let's use all available methods to cool the earth. BTW, some proven methods to cool the earth involve 'dirtying up' the 'sphere.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes I know. That's because you leave it out of the equation, denying real science.
Click to expand...

Not true at all, but I wouldn't expect a denial cultist to care.

cabse5 said:
Is this a crisis of warming or is it not? If it's a crisis of warming, let's use all available methods to cool the earth. BTW, some proven methods to cool the earth involve 'dirtying up' the 'sphere.
Click to expand...

Spitting sulfur into the atmosphere to block out sunlight strikes me as a terrible, terrible idea.

I'd also point out that there's a wide gulf of room between "crisis for which we must do everything possible" and "do nothing."
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are also people who thinks the sun doesn't matter. I never understood that since the sun is the source of 99.99+% of the energy that becomes measurable temperature on earth.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Find me one person who thinks the sun "doesn't matter."
Click to expand...

Oh, goodie, yet another it's real, no it's not, Al Gore is wrong, science is wrong, no it's not, the Earth is warming, no it's not, and if it is carbon dioxide can't be a factor, politicians want to use AGW to pass more taxes, therefore it must be wrong sort of a thread.

I confess: I didn't read the whole thing, and probably never will. Nothing new under either the sun or the carbon ever is posted anyway. I did read the above, however.

I'm going to go out on a limb, here, since I admittedly didn't read the rest of the thread: Neither Lord nor anyone else from the Church of Perpetual Denial ever came up with anyone who actually said that the sun doesn't matter.

If I'm wrong, please quote me the post in which someone actually said this. Otherwise, I'm going with the conclusion that it is a giant straw man that was never addressed again.
 
Homer. said:
A new study by the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) shows the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.

Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.

Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says UN | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Further evidence, if any more were needed, that climate change is a reality. Sure, the climate change deniers, like all conspiracy theorists, will deny any evidence put before them. Hopefully this new evidence will make some people to see the reality.
Click to expand...

No one is denying climate change we just don't buy the non-sense that a 1 degree increase over the last 130 is a crisis.
 
I have asked over and over without a response:

For those of you who believe in man made global warming, what are you personally doing to change it?

Because if you are preaching it but taking no action you are part of the problem and need to STFU.
 
tech30528 said:
I have asked over and over without a response:

For those of you who believe in man made global warming, what are you personally doing to change it?

Because if you are preaching it but taking no action you are part of the problem and need to STFU.
Click to expand...


It was 12 degrees warmer during the Carboniferous Period those dinosaurs must have been very industrious with all those dinosaur cars and factories belching carbon!

1 degree warmer in 130 years and we are all going to die,.... :2funny:
 
blaxshep said:
It was 12 degrees warmer during the Carboniferous Period those dinosaurs must have been very industrious with all those dinosaur cars and factories belching carbon!

1 degree warmer in 130 years and we are all going to die,.... :2funny:
Click to expand...



The preceding post was brought to you by... Vapidity.

"Vapidity. When you dont really understand things, yet have a firm opinion on them."

Now back to our regularly scheduled postings.
 
Threegoofs said:
The preceding post was brought to you by... Vapidity.

"Vapidity. When you dont really understand things, yet have a firm opinion on them."

Now back to our regularly scheduled postings.
Click to expand...


What is not to understand? The whole man made global warming argument is based on our cars and factories putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it has risen one whole deadly degree in 130 years of our industrial revolution. So apparently the dinosaurs of the Carboniferous Period must have been 12 times as industrialized as we are today right? I mean if not your whole argument is vapid.
 
blaxshep said:
What is not to understand? The whole man made global warming argument is based on our cars and factories putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it has risen one whole deadly degree in 130 years of our industrial revolution. So apparently the dinosaurs of the Carboniferous Period must have been 12 times as industrialized as we are today right? I mean if not your whole argument is vapid.
Click to expand...

Doubling down, I see.
 
blaxshep said:
Just waiting to see how the Earth got 12 degrees warmer without us.

If the argument is vapid you should have no problem discrediting me.
Click to expand...

Actually, you discredit yourself quite nicely.

Obviously, the mechanisms of warming are not the same. The magnitude of the acceleration is also much greater with AGW.

What was the mechanism? I don't know. Eccentric earth orbit, long cycles, lots of theories... A brief google search turned up this-

http://www.dinodinosaur.com/paleont...n-years-ago-led-to-global-warming-events.html

So maybe CO2 did play a major role.

But how would you find out what happened? Science. Just like we know what's happening now.
 
blaxshep said:
Just waiting to see how the Earth got 12 degrees warmer without us.

If the argument is vapid you should have no problem discrediting me.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously under the impression that climate scientists are saying industrial CO2 is the only thing that can affect temperatures? You think climate scientists believe natural CO2 emissions do nothing? You think climate scientists believe the sun isn't a factor? Orbital mechanics? Volcanic activity?
 
Deuce said:
Are you seriously under the impression that climate scientists are saying industrial CO2 is the only thing that can affect temperatures? You think climate scientists believe natural CO2 emissions do nothing? You think climate scientists believe the sun isn't a factor? Orbital mechanics? Volcanic activity?
Click to expand...
LOL...

They minimize the suns impact, and volcanic activity is short term and only notable for very large eruptions. They treat natural CO2 as neutral, even though ocean warming with change the equilibrium.


Yes.

The warmest climate scientists focus just on man made CO2. They only bring up other factors to dismiss them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

They minimize the suns impact, and volcanic activity is short term and only notable for very large eruptions. They treat natural CO2 as neutral, even though ocean warming with change the equilibrium.


Yes.

The warmest climate scientists focus just on man made CO2. They only bring up other factors to dismiss them.
Click to expand...

Did you read the questions that other guy posted? You don't agree that those questions would indicate some of the things I queried about?
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

They minimize the suns impact, and volcanic activity is short term and only notable for very large eruptions. They treat natural CO2 as neutral, even though ocean warming with change the equilibrium.


Yes.

The warmest climate scientists focus just on man made CO2. They only bring up other factors to dismiss them.
Click to expand...

Yes. You've made it clear that only YOU understand the science, and all those PhD types who actually spend their entire lives studying this are poorly trained idiots.

LOL...
 
Deuce said:
Did you read the questions that other guy posted? You don't agree that those questions would indicate some of the things I queried about?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have too many things going on and not sure what you speak of.

What are your referring to? Which post?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, goodie, yet another it's real, no it's not, Al Gore is wrong, science is wrong, no it's not, the Earth is warming, no it's not, and if it is carbon dioxide can't be a factor, politicians want to use AGW to pass more taxes, therefore it must be wrong sort of a thread.

I confess: I didn't read the whole thing, and probably never will. Nothing new under either the sun or the carbon ever is posted anyway. I did read the above, however.

I'm going to go out on a limb, here, since I admittedly didn't read the rest of the thread: Neither Lord nor anyone else from the Church of Perpetual Denial ever came up with anyone who actually said that the sun doesn't matter.

If I'm wrong, please quote me the post in which someone actually said this. Otherwise, I'm going with the conclusion that it is a giant straw man that was never addressed again.
Click to expand...

Still nothing.

I suppose that supports my hypothesis, doesn't it?
 
There are a few here who seem to be very misinformed about the concept of science and how it works, as well as what scientists actually do for a living.

Science, above all else, attempts to explain what goes on here on Earth and in the universe beyond. The greatest power preventing scientists from abusing the system and making their own agendas "scientific" fact is the scientific method.

1. You must have some kind of problem to solve. What is taking place in a particular chemical reaction? How do the orbits of other bodies in our solar system work? Is the climate on Earth changing? Why is the climate on Earth changing?

2. One or more hypotheses are formed by those involved in the research. A hypothesis must be testable and thus able to be empirically proven or disproven. The hypothesis must stand up to peer review later, without doubt the most important step of the scientific method.

3. After this is in order, an experiment must be conducted. This experiment must be able to be replicated by others and must control any factors that could reduce the accuracy of whatever is being measured. This will also have to stand up to peer review.

4. Conclusion. A problem has been identified, a hypothesis has been made, an experiment has been conducted, and now you have to put it all together in a paper. Have fun with that. By the way, this will also have to stand up to peer review.

5. Peer Review. The fun part. A bunch of your egotistical colleagues will be put into the same room as you and examine every facet of the research and paper you have worked so hard on. If they find that your hypothesis cannot be proven you really screwed up. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. You are now back at square 1.

If your hypothesis cannot be disproven, you either really screwed up or you are a dick. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

If your experiment was biased in any way, see above. If your experiment did not test your hypothesis properly, see above. If you were drilling ice core samples and were assaulted by a penguin, see above.

If your conclusion does not actually conclude things, you must either fix it or everything will be thrown out the window. If your conclusion is not in line with your hypothesis and experiment, you have either royally screwed up or you are really a dick.


6. If nothing is catastrophically wrong with your paper, it can now be published. It's over, right? Wrong.

If anyone, anywhere thinks that any of the data or wording inside the paper has been lifted from anywhere else, even another of your own papers, the editor will be greatly annoyed because he will have to cross-reference the whole thing. If he finds that any data or writing is lifted from another paper, you are either a complete idiot or a cheat and everyone will know about it.

Then, if you're a student, you may face expulsion from the college. If you are not, the entire academic community in your field will know about it and it may well ruin your career.




So you can't really say that these climate scientists in question are fudging their numbers. If it's been published, it has been examined under a microscope and is still under scrutiny even now. That said, there are at least eleven thousand papers that have gone through this process and have been published between 1991 and 2011 that do find that the activities of mankind are raising the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. If you want sources, I can cite them but be warned that many will be rather long-winded.
 
Good overview, Mo.

One thing to point out is that this has been an idea that has been worked on for 40 years+, with lots of work going to prove it wrong, but most of the data going towards confirming that AGW is real and will be a major problem.

The work now is really going towards clarifying how bad things will get in terms of environmental impact.

The basic studies of AGW are just no longer that interesting since its so well established.
 
Pretty much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom