• 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!

The rising sea level myth[W:565]

Use this site. If you plug in 2003, the trend lines all go down.

In you plug in 1998.5, the trend lines all go up.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

It depends greatly on which year you want to choose to start.

But it has still risen, no? I set almost all of those back to 0 (as old as they'd go) and all of them showed an upward trend. Nice.

The key to this, though, is that the notion of AGW demands that if the CO2 is rising, the temperature must also rise as a direct impact of the most powerful forcing agent. It is not.

Is this that old spiel about "CO2 lags temperature?"

The proof is in the effect from the cause. if the predicted effect is not there, then the cause is suspect. If the predicted effect is always there as predicted in all cases at all times in all places, then the notion becomes a theory. If the predicted effect is never there in any case in any place, the cause should be questioned quite strongly. I am questioning your stated cause.

Again, just to verify, you're questioning whether or not CO2 causes a rise in temperature?

Here is a table of 73 predictions of AGW. They are united one to the other by the fact that they are all wrong. How many models have to be wrong and by how much before we can accept that the modelers are not capable of making a prediction that works?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

That is a pretty good representation of 73 incorrect predictions. The average of all of the incorrect models is way off.

More blogs, surprise surprise. Why doesn't he get that stuff peer reviewed? He wouldn't be cherry-picking, would he?

If this science is really a science, why is everyone making predictions that are so inaccurate? In a real science, they would be hitting it pretty well.

Like this:

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf
Are you now saying it's not science? Oh, and this seems to disagree with him.
 
Then you throw science completely out the window.
Why?

Because I am certain the sun is the primary factor, and it has stopped increasing in power, and shows signs of very probably decrease?
 
No, that simply isn't true.
and I seriously doubt you can show on any but the blogger anti sites that they do.
One thing that is still being debated among scientists is the degree to which global warming is due to human activities.
Not whether, just how much, and not whether it already ended. Were that the case, there would be no reason to assign it a cause, or causes.



The IPCC says that "most" of the warming is due to the activities of man.

Are we classing the IPCC as a blog? I'm not sure it's up to that standard.

This from the fist of about a zillion cites to google.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<snip>
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2] The IPCC defines "very likely" as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.[3]
Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
<snip>
 
No, that is not at all what that means. You are missing basic concepts here and I'm not sure how to explain them. I'll give it a shot, though.

Factors A, B, and C all influence the change in Widget Production. All conditions "standard," 100 widgets are produced.

A is the biggest factor. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/- 50 units.
B is the next biggest. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/-20 units.
C is a small variable. From its low to high oscillation, Widget Production shifts +/- 5 units.

From 1950 to 2000, Factor A goes from its baseline and falls to 10% of its maximum "down" oscillation. Net result: -5 units. (10% of its maximum oscillation of 50)
In the same period, Factor B goes from its baseline to 100% of its maximum "up" oscillation. Net result: +20 units.
In the same period, Factor C goes from its baseline and falls to its maximum "low" oscillation. Net result: -5 units.

The end result is only + 10 units. Factor B could clearly be said to be driving this shift, as the other factors are actually resisting this trend. That doesn't mean A has suddenly become unimportant, its oscillations are still going to have a major influence on things. Why, who knows, over the next few years it could swing way down and completely erase the progress that B has made. Stranger still, Factor C turned out to have the same effect as Factor A, -5 units, despite it being the smallest of the three variables. This is because it fluctuated a lot from the norm while Factor A did not.


This is the deal with temperature. We'll call Factor B the green house effect. It has been steadily increasing for more than a century now. However, Factor A (the sun), has oscillated up and down quite a bit. This has the effect of temporarily halting the rise in temperature. And then boosting it. And then halting it. And then boosting it. But the overall solar influence on the change in temperature has been small, because the sun just hasn't changed much in the last 50 years. Its oscillations have been pretty regular up until this latest cycle, which dipped down lower than before. And sure enough, this caused the temperature rise to halt.

So, pondering it, the basic concept you're missing is the net change in any given variable being key. The sun is very, very important to temperature. It just hasn't been doing much, allowing the influence of CO2 to show.



I know that the Sun is very important to temperature. It is the IPCC that you need to convince. It is they who attributed most of the warming to the increase of CO2 caused by Man.

Whatever influences impact climate change, it is obvious that the scientists who present themselves as experts are not in possession of the experience or knowledge or whatever else is needed to either understand or predict the effects of all of the interacting forces.

Otherwise, I suppose, they would have done so by now.
 
But it has still risen, no? I set almost all of those back to 0 (as old as they'd go) and all of them showed an upward trend. Nice.



Is this that old spiel about "CO2 lags temperature?"



Again, just to verify, you're questioning whether or not CO2 causes a rise in temperature?



More blogs, surprise surprise. Why doesn't he get that stuff peer reviewed? He wouldn't be cherry-picking, would he?


Are you now saying it's not science? Oh, and this seems to disagree with him.




The point on the rising temperature is based on what the IPCC asserts. That MOST of the warming in the 20th century is due to the activities of man. The CO2 continues to rise so the temperature should rise. I has not risen for the last decade. There is an alternate idea that there is a 60 year cycle that drives climate and that one provides predictability and is based on real life science.

CO2 historically has lagged the rise of temperature because rising temperatures cause the outgassing of CO2. That is not at all what I was talking about.

The presence of CO2 causes a rise of temperature on this planet. However, with every incremental increase of CO2, the temperature increase that accompanies it grows smaller and smaller. This diminishing effect has now become almost nil. The measurement of the radiation that is escaping from Earth is evidence that the calculations regarding the Greenhouse effect of CO2 used by the current experts is simply wrong.

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth

Regarding your link, given the FACT that the experts cannot predict what will happen in the real world in real time with the real climate, I find it amusing that they also make predictions paring away various factors, all of which it is likely the also don't understand and then use these fantasies to justify their mistakes.

Why are the best predictions from the AGW Scientists always the newest ones that cannot possibly be checked for accuracy?
 
The IPCC says that "most" of the warming is due to the activities of man.

Are we classing the IPCC as a blog? I'm not sure it's up to that standard.

This from the fist of about a zillion cites to google.

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<snip>
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2] The IPCC defines "very likely" as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.[3]
Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
<snip>

Your statement:

You may have said that, but the "scientists" that depend on this to make their living are saying that 50% of the warming is due to the activities of man.
 
Your statement:
You keep referring to BS like the IPCC reports. You know we disagree with them, why do you do it?

You know, some people say the definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over, expecting the results to change...
 
You keep referring to BS like the IPCC reports. You know we disagree with them, why do you do it?

You know, some people say the definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over, expecting the results to change...

Hmm.. why refer to the IPCC reports, knowing that you disagree with them.... good question... You'd think I'd have learned by now that only sites with an obvious bias would do, and that no real science would serve to support any point I might make.

Well, OK, then, let's use sites you like, ones with an obvious bias:

Here's a good one, one that meets your definition of a reliable site:

The average global temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius from 20 years ago. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 10 percent over the same time- see the graphs below for the rate of increase. Sea levels have risen by about 5cm. Although .5C and 5cm changes sound insignificant (and are small compared to predicted future changes) they result in larger changes happening every day all over the world. You have seen the news: glaciers are melting in our national parks, snow caps disappearing on mountains, large chunks breaking off glaciers and ice shelves as these bodies break apart. Artic permafrost is thawing, and polar bears populations are decreasing with the ice. The balance of ecosystems is changing as animal and plant species breed and bloom earlier in the spring and shift their geographic ranges with changing climate.
 
Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

I'll bet one day in the future. The climate community realized there isn't a damn thing we can do about warming, and that if we want norther cap ice not to melt, we need to get Asia to stop emitting black carbon.

Once they come to that conclusion, that warming is mostly natural, and the world is spherical rather than flat, will you then believe me?
 
Why?

Because I am certain the sun is the primary factor, and it has stopped increasing in power, and shows signs of very probably decrease?
If it's "showing signs of decrease" then where did your assumption that these "signs" show a decrease come from? Past information and indications? Or did you just dream it up? Here's what you disagreed with:

There is no guarantee of future anything.
But, what has happened in the past is our best indication of what is likely to happen in the future.
If disagree with that, then you've abandoned science for a crystal ball.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If it's "showing signs of decrease" then where did your assumption that these "signs" show a decrease come from? Past information and indications? Or did you just dream it up? Here's what you disagreed with:
Just look at the satellite TSI data, and the solar indications of cycle 24. We are just less than half way through cycle 24 and it is not as powerful as cycle 23 was.


MoSurveyor said:
If disagree with that, then you've abandoned science for a crystal ball.
Really? Because I realize there is not strong evidence that temperature follows CO2? That I realize that temperature correlates better with the sun?

I cannot accurately predict what the future will do, but I say it is most probable the next decade will show a definite decrease in temperature. I say that because unless we see something abnormal in the sun's patter, it's current pattern shows diminishing power for now. Now I don't give models the same credit as people in the alarmist community do, but solar models have cycle 25 even cooler than cycle 24. The past solar patterns are more easily seen as patterns so modeled results are likely far more accurate than modeling the earth's climate, and the pattern shows a less intense sun for a few decades.
 
Both graphs below have links attached. The first is wiki, the second is very interesting.




 
<snip AGW argument - unrelated to the issue>
You're not addressing what I said about your reply to Dittohead not!'s statement. You indicated you disagreed with the statement:

"What has happened in the past is our best indication of what is likely to happen in the future.",

which I said meant you were throwing science out the window.


Now you're presenting a ton of *something* and saying this is an indicator of the future. If your *something* isn't past data that you've extrapolated into the future than what is it? It seems like all you're doing here is confirming what Dittohead not! has claimed.
 
Your statement:



Okay, I understated the extent of their lack of understanding.

The quote I plucked is from the Scriptures of the AGW Dogma, the IPCC. I know I've seen the 50% number quoted, but I just didn't have the energy to look past this one which was, think, in the top two on the Google listing.

It demonstrates the same complete and utter removal from reality.
 
Last edited:
You're not addressing what I said about your reply to Dittohead not!'s statement. You indicated you disagreed with the statement:

"What has happened in the past is our best indication of what is likely to happen in the future.",

which I said meant you were throwing science out the window.


Now you're presenting a ton of *something* and saying this is an indicator of the future. If your *something* isn't past data that you've extrapolated into the future than what is it? It seems like all you're doing here is confirming what Dittohead not! has claimed.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand how I addressed it. I was showing solar has been increasing also. Not just CO2, but since the last solar cycle, the solar intensity is decreasing. My point is that since their is no certainty that CO2 is the cause of the majority of temperature change, that since one trend is declining, so may the temperature. Looking at the CO2 vs. temperature trend and gambling the future on that is not a good move.

Only the faithful of the CO2 dogma of the AGW Gods will discard other possibility. It takes faith to ignore science like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom