• 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!

Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Not sure your posts are worth responding to. I've linked science and studies. Try doing the same.

You did a lot to repeat yourself Joe but failed to answer the simplest of questions. If AGW is such a danger to our existence, our future, then why is there a scheme to buy your way to increased pollution?
 
Problem is, guy, that in past eons, the world had much more green plant mass - especially forests - with which to absorb the CO2. For example, most of the eastern half of America was essentially one big forest. Almost every time that you see a farm, you are looking at a place that is absorbing less CO2 than it once did - and how many farms are there in this world? In other words, the world can absorb less CO2 than before, but we're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air from a source the world never had to deal with.

You can't claim "reversible chemical process" because the absorbing factor (trees, ocean, green plant mass) is now significantly less than it was before, and is less than the combination of the world's natural producers of CO2 +plus+ the billions of tons we're adding each year. It's the same as in any process - if more is added than can be removed, then the amount of what's added will only go up.
A tree farm has more trees than a forest, and is pruned regularly. The great planes growing cereal crops that are harvested absorb more than the grasses that were there.
The hardiness zones have moved north about 100 miles, improving the growth capability of vast millions of acres.
Some amount of the CO2 increase is unquestionably man's doing, we just do not know how much.
Thankfully there are limits on how much CO2 we can rearrange, many say we have already passed peak oil.
The reality is that oil, gas, and coal, will get harder and more expensive to extract.
Man made carbon fuels will get less expensive, as the technology improves, and alternative energy sources increase.
The curves will cross, and people will on average always choose the least expensive option.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

So science is now decided by 'most' scientists. A simple majority might do.

Is any specialized training required or will any degree suffice?

If scientists can vote for the truth, why can't the layman? One in Four in U.S. Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming

No. The science is understood. We just have to try to get the people who don't understand science to understand that virtually all scientists are in agreement.

You apparently fall into the camp they doesn't get the science OR the concept that certain issues (evolution, plate tectonics, receptor theory, germ theory, AGW) are basic knowledge. That's a really 'special' camp.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

No. The science is understood. We just have to try to get the people who don't understand science to understand that virtually all scientists are in agreement.

You apparently fall into the camp they doesn't get the science OR the concept that certain issues (evolution, plate tectonics, receptor theory, germ theory, AGW) are basic knowledge. That's a really 'special' camp.
The part of this Science that is understood is the direct response of CO2.
The forcing or open loop feedback if it exists may be so small as to be inconsequential.
Of the observed .8 C warming observed in the last 133 years, only .2 C are from unattributable sources.
If the the IPCC numbers for the direct response of CO2 are believed, then there is almost no room for the
predicted additional feedbacks.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

No. The science is understood. We just have to try to get the people who don't understand science to understand that virtually all scientists are in agreement.

You apparently fall into the camp they doesn't get the science OR the concept that certain issues (evolution, plate tectonics, receptor theory, germ theory, AGW) are basic knowledge. That's a really 'special' camp.
Before you get to where you tell me it could take decades or even centuries for the added CO2 to reach equilibrium,
Consider Mann's words in his Scientific American article from March of 2014.
If the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise 2 degrees Celsius by 2036,

These numbers come from calculations made by me and several colleagues. We plugged values of Earth’s “equilibrium climate sensitivity”—
a common measure of the heating effect of greenhouse gases—into a so-called energy balance model.
Scientists use the model to investigate possible climate scenarios.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

The part of this Science that is understood is the direct response of CO2.
The forcing or open loop feedback if it exists may be so small as to be inconsequential.
Of the observed .8 C warming observed in the last 133 years, only .2 C are from unattributable sources.
If the the IPCC numbers for the direct response of CO2 are believed, then there is almost no room for the
predicted additional feedbacks.

You've written this up and submitted it to PNAS, I assume?
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

You've written this up and submitted it to PNAS, I assume?
And so you fall back to your default comment when you cannot counter the science.
Everything I have stated is part of the public domain, and is already documented.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

And so you fall back to your default comment when you cannot counter the science.
Everything I have stated is part of the public domain, and is already documented.

Right. Yet no scientists seem to take it into account when making their predictions.

I'm not a climate scientist. Neither are you.

Why do you pretend you know more than them?

I know medicine. And when most of the medical profession is solidly accepting of something, I know I need to have a damn good argument, backed by solid science, to have any hope of rationally disagreeing. And even then, i really have to make sure I deeply understand the reason for the consensus, and double check everything I know against that. And the deeper I know the area, the more I need to do this.

So my 'default comment' contains quite a few layers of truth (as well as an appropriate amount of snark). You seem to just want to ignore that truth.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

So science is now decided by 'most' scientists. A simple majority might do.

Is any specialized training required or will any degree suffice?

If scientists can vote for the truth, why can't the layman? One in Four in U.S. Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming

I don't understand the "mixed middle" of 36%. Either you are or you ain't. But only 39% solidly believe in the hoax, according to Gallup
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

You did a lot to repeat yourself Joe but failed to answer the simplest of questions. If AGW is such a danger to our existence, our future, then why is there a scheme to buy your way to increased pollution?

And I told you, scientist don't vote or buy off politicians. So, the hope us to discourage. You guys too often confuse politics and science. Politics us what keeps it from being treated appropriately.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

No. The science is understood. We just have to try to get the people who don't understand science to understand that virtually all scientists are in agreement.

Your "science" is overwhelmed by millions of years of mother nature's amazing climate change HISTORY...from cold to hot to cold to hot to cold to hot...then repeat the cycle even more times. And all the amazing things that it created (or melted) here on earth. Like the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, the Great Lakes ...AND the glacier that used to cover half of North America, but melted when it warmed up 25,000 years ago. Algore and your smart-ass scientists will NEVER replace mother nature.

Understand that.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

And so you fall back to your default comment when you cannot counter the science.
Everything I have stated is part of the public domain, and is already documented.

However he is correct. There is likely something you're missing. The novice often learns just enough to sound good but come to wrong conclusions. As much as I respect nurses, there's a reason they are not treated like doctors. So, one novice spouting off to another is hardly convincing. You need the scientific community, which really doesn't agree with you.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Your "science" is overwhelmed by millions of years of mother nature's amazing climate change HISTORY...from cold to hot to cold to hot to cold to hot...then repeat the cycle even more times. And all the amazing things that it created (or melted) here on earth. Like the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, the Great Lakes ...AND the glacier that used to cover half of North America, but melted when it warmed up 25,000 years ago. Algore and your smart-ass scientists will NEVER replace mother nature.

Understand that.

Thanks for the third grade science review.
Maybe you'll learn about rates of change in the next grade's textbook.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Right. Yet no scientists seem to take it into account when making their predictions.

I'm not a climate scientist. Neither are you.

Why do you pretend you know more than them?

I know medicine. And when most of the medical profession is solidly accepting of something, I know I need to have a damn good argument, backed by solid science, to have any hope of rationally disagreeing. And even then, i really have to make sure I deeply understand the reason for the consensus, and double check everything I know against that. And the deeper I know the area, the more I need to do this.

So my 'default comment' contains quite a few layers of truth (as well as an appropriate amount of snark). You seem to just want to ignore that truth.
What truth? The data is the data, and the existing data says the predicted additional feedbacks are minimal to nonexistent.
The additional hypothesized open loop feedbacks, are only theoretical until they are ether observed or invalided,
So far neither has happened.
The IPCC reports are all about the response to the predicted warming.
So far there is very little empirical evidence that the additional feedbacks exists, and are capable of causing the predicted warming.
Scientist like Dr Mann, are predicting we will be at +2 C by 2036, a 1.2 C increase in just 22 years,
If the temperature is going to get there it batter change slope soon.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

However he is correct. There is likely something you're missing. The novice often learns just enough to sound good but come to wrong conclusions. As much as I respect nurses, there's a reason they are not treated like doctors. So, one novice spouting off to another is hardly convincing. You need the scientific community, which really doesn't agree with you.
I only rely on numbers not opinions. Most of my 30 + years of R&D have been in Physics and optics, which is why I was skeptical when I first heard about "forcing".
CO2 is very difficult to pump optically, the most common path is a vibrational transition from nitrogen.
There is a known and fairly accepted direct response to increasing CO2, that according to the IPCC works out to 1.2 C for each doubling.
So 140 to 280 ppm 1.2 C
280 to 560 ppm 1.2 C
560 to 1120 ppm 1.2 C
Notice the curve is not linear, and the response per unit increase is not as high.
We might be able to hit the first doubling, but the second would be almost impossible,
the cost curves for man made fuels will cross long before then.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

I only rely on numbers not opinions. Most of my 30 + years of R&D have been in Physics and optics, which is why I was skeptical when I first heard about "forcing".
CO2 is very difficult to pump optically, the most common path is a vibrational transition from nitrogen.
There is a known and fairly accepted direct response to increasing CO2, that according to the IPCC works out to 1.2 C for each doubling.
So 140 to 280 ppm 1.2 C
280 to 560 ppm 1.2 C
560 to 1120 ppm 1.2 C
Notice the curve is not linear, and the response per unit increase is not as high.
We might be able to hit the first doubling, but the second would be almost impossible,
the cost curves for man made fuels will cross long before then.

Numbers are no more reliable than opinion. They have to be interpreted. Few, if any, here have the expertise to correct you. That's why we rely on those who do. It's arrogance for any novice to think they know more than experts, as I've tried to show.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Thanks for the third grade science review.
Maybe you'll learn about rates of change in the next grade's textbook.

Don't mention it. Anytime. You obviously skipped elementary school. Or the liberals have changed it so much they don't teach climate change history anymore.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Don't mention it. Anytime. You obviously skipped elementary school. Or the liberals have changed it so much they don't teach climate change history anymore.

Rate of change. You're gonna love the concept, if you can wrap your head around it.

Here's a taste:

tejudehu.jpg
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Numbers are no more reliable than opinion. They have to be interpreted. Few, if any, here have the expertise to correct you. That's why we rely on those who do. It's arrogance for any novice to think they know more than experts, as I've tried to show.
No need to interpret the numbers, when they can be graphed.
1880_3.jpg
The Yellow is the known response for CO2,
Pink and light blue are the limits of the equation for a doubling of CO2 by 2080.
 
And when it does, you'll point to some other made up theory that will be more consistent for your political beliefs.
If it does, we will have a new area of Physics, no political beliefs in Physics.
If it does not the whole AGW theory is out on it's ear.
 
A tree farm has more trees than a forest, and is pruned regularly. The great planes growing cereal crops that are harvested absorb more than the grasses that were there.

Wrong, and wrong. Why? Because in an old-growth forest, the plant mass isn't just the trees - it's EVERYTHING in that forest: the moss, the ferns, the vines, the bushes, and the weeds...all of which is removed in a tree farm. And FYI the total number of tree farms on the planet don't even comprise a fraction of the amount of old-growth forests we've cut down over the centuries.

And cereal crops absorb more than the grasses? Really? And you can back that up with, what? Guy, I grew up in farmland, and even in the biggest farms, maybe half of the ground is covered with plants. Why? There's these things called "rows" - you may have heard of them. In between each row of plants, there's bare dirt...dirt that in a meadow or wild grassland would be filled with...plant life. What's more, grasslands don't get plowed up to be bare dirt for months at a time. And how much CO2 is that bare dirt absorbing? None.

Okay, guy? Your points...aren't what you thought they were.

The hardiness zones have moved north about 100 miles, improving the growth capability of vast millions of acres.

And the tundra is melting and releasing methane (which is 25X worse than CO2 when it comes to global warming). And vast tracts of land (including much of the US RIGHT NOW) is in the throes of extreme or exceptional drought.

[/QUOTE]Some amount of the CO2 increase is unquestionably man's doing, we just do not know how much.

Wrong. We DO know how much. We know the natural sources of CO2, what can cause the CO2 level to spike, and what can absorb it...but we also know how much we're adding every week of every year of every decade.

Thankfully there are limits on how much CO2 we can rearrange, many say we have already passed peak oil.

It's not just regular oil wells. Fracking - which has enabled America to become the world's largest producer of oil - is also used to extract natural gas...and a surprising amount of that is leaked to the atmosphere.

The reality is that oil, gas, and coal, will get harder and more expensive to extract.

The problem is, the point at which fossil fuels will become economically impractical is several decades in the future...but we need action on the climate NOW. Climate change is here NOW. The ice is melting NOW. The sea level is rising NOW. The ocean's acidification is increasing NOW.

Man made carbon fuels will get less expensive, as the technology improves, and alternative energy sources increase.

Again, that's decades in the future. Humankind needs action NOW.

The curves will cross, and people will on average always choose the least expensive option.

Again, that's decades in the future. Humankind needs action on climate change NOW.
 
If it does, we will have a new area of Physics, no political beliefs in Physics.
If it does not the whole AGW theory is out on it's ear.

I think you intentionally are forgetting the third possibility.

That you are totally wrong.

If I was a betting man, id bet against the armchair scientist with fixed political beliefs all day long.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

No need to interpret the numbers, when they can be graphed.
View attachment 67166682
The Yellow is the known response for CO2,
Pink and light blue are the limits of the equation for a doubling of CO2 by 2080.

That's a mistake. Numbers always need interpretation, they don't speak for themselves. Any good statistician, any good researcher knows this.
 
I think you intentionally are forgetting the third possibility.

That you are totally wrong.

If I was a betting man, id bet against the armchair scientist with fixed political beliefs all day long.
You do not comprehend well do you? My statement was inclusive of the temperature going up.
I go wth the data.
 
Back
Top Bottom