• 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!

A rational climate article[W:268]

Re: A rational climate article

Threegoofs said:
Apparently, you're a big fan of flushing money down the crapper, since a whole lot of these grants are going to fund research projects that are ruined because of timing issues, seasonal data collection, etc.

But we all know you don't really care about science, as you demonstrate here daily.

Nice way to avoid my point though, pointing out the 'regime' doesn't issue research grants directly.
Click to expand...



I just googled where you might be able to buy a clue. Nothing there for you. Sorry I couldn't help.
 
Re: A rational climate article

ethanUNC said:
(Citation needed)
Click to expand...

Well, that search took about 3 seconds.

RealClimate: How much will sea level rise?

In summary, they estimate that including dynamic ice sheet processes gives projected SLR at 2100 somewhere in the 80 cm to 2 meter range, and suggest that 80 cm should be the ‘default’ value. This is remarkable in a number of ways – first, these are the highest estimates of sea level rise by 2100 that has been published in the literature to date, and secondly, while they don’t take into account the full uncertainty in other aspects of sea level rise considered by IPCC, their numbers are significantly higher in any case. And this week the Dutch ‘Delta Commission‘ published its estimate of sea level rise that the Dutch need to plan for (p111): 55 to 110 cm globally and a bit more for Holland, based on a large number of scientists’ input. [Clarifying update: this is meant to be a "high end estimate".]
 
Re: A rational climate article

ethanUNC said:
I feel like I'm watching a Glenn Beck soap opera.
Click to expand...



It's so easy to entertain some.

Just wave a shiny bright object or suddenly say, "Squirrel!"
 
Re: A rational climate article

ethanUNC said:
It's because you don't believe the studies that are shown to you that demonstrate warming. You say the IPCC is messing up like YECs say that geologists and evolutionary biologists are messing up.
Click to expand...



What is "YEC's"?
 
Re: A rational climate article

ethanUNC said:
It's because you don't believe the studies that are shown to you that demonstrate warming. You say the IPCC is messing up like YECs say that geologists and evolutionary biologists are messing up.
Click to expand...

Here's the difference, pay attention;

Is it warmer than 100 years ago?
Yes... That is undeniable.

Is co2 a factor in that warming?
Yes, a minor factor. It can be shown in lab conditions that if all other factors are equal, an area with higher co2 levels will hold more heat than an area with lower co2 levels.

Is co2 a driving factor of climate? No, co2 typically lags behind temperature by a factor of hundreds of years. So, while the two are correlated with a minor influence, it's not a cause.

The alarmists will tell you that they account for every conceivable variable, but of that was the case you would not see the divergence between projections and reality that we see growing.

So, where the creationists (which you changed from flat earth believers... Keep your fallacies straight) were coming at this from a position of protecting their beliefs, the opposition comes from analysis of the data and even a high school level understanding of physics is enough to poke gaping holes in the hypothesis...
 
Re: A rational climate article

code1211 said:
Well, that search took about 3 seconds.

RealClimate: How much will sea level rise?

In summary, they estimate that including dynamic ice sheet processes gives projected SLR at 2100 somewhere in the 80 cm to 2 meter range, and suggest that 80 cm should be the ‘default’ value. This is remarkable in a number of ways – first, these are the highest estimates of sea level rise by 2100 that has been published in the literature to date, and secondly, while they don’t take into account the full uncertainty in other aspects of sea level rise considered by IPCC, their numbers are significantly higher in any case. And this week the Dutch ‘Delta Commission‘ published its estimate of sea level rise that the Dutch need to plan for (p111): 55 to 110 cm globally and a bit more for Holland, based on a large number of scientists’ input. [Clarifying update: this is meant to be a "high end estimate".]
Click to expand...

Too bad for these fear mongers that ocean levels have been dropping.
 
Re: A rational climate article

ethanUNC said:
It's because you don't believe the studies that are shown to you that demonstrate warming. You say the IPCC is messing up like YECs say that geologists and evolutionary biologists are messing up.
Click to expand...
Is that what I'm saying? I don't think you have enough knowledge to understand my questions, so why do you respond at all?
 
Re: A rational climate article

code1211 said:
I know. Right?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the drop a few years ago was only of a few cm... But still, islands are supposed to disappear soon, and coastal cities will be washed away, etc...
 
Re: A rational climate article

BmanMcfly said:
Well, to be fair, the drop a few years ago was only of a few cm... But still, islands are supposed to disappear soon, and coastal cities will be washed away, etc...
Click to expand...



My favorite of all time AGW Die Hard, Dr. James Hansen, predicts a sea level rise of about 16 to 20 feet by 2095. The current decrease must be the coiling required for the sea level to suddenly spring vertical like a world class high jumper.

It's possible that his advancing years are accentuating his previously outrageous and delusional climate predictions. This is very sad.

Current Wisdom: Hansen

Hansen (2007) suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible, and pointed out that such a doubling time, from a 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015, would lead to a cumulative 5 m sea level rise by 2095 [Hansen and Sato Figure 7].
 
Re: A rational climate article

ethanUNC said:
It's because you don't believe the studies that are shown to you that demonstrate warming. You say the IPCC is messing up like YECs say that geologists and evolutionary biologists are messing up.
Click to expand...

No, I think most knowledgable skeptics agree that we've had a warming trend over all for the past 300 years or so. From time to time there have been pauses in warming, but the pause we have now is the longest recorded so far within that time frame, and it isn't showing signs of letting up. Climate scientists haven't explained it, except to put the excess heat in the deep oceans where no one can confirm it. Nor can they explain why heat is going to the oceans all of a sudden while it didn't do that before.

Regardless, the question isn't whether there is warming or not, the question is whether models the climate scientists use can accurately predict what will happen to the global temperatures, and they clearly can't. The models are worthless.

And the models are the whole thing that warmists are using to support their policy recommendations, so their recommendations are worthless, too.

Nor can their theories about what is causing warming be correct, because that's based on the idea that CO2 is driving it. CO2 has been going up like gangbusters, but the temperatures have not. Ipso facto, the CO2 theory is wrong in some major way. And you can't explain it by speculating about what happened to excess heat. Most likely the excess heat doesn't exist.
 
Re: A rational climate article

ethanUNC said:
It's because you don't believe the studies that are shown to you that demonstrate warming. You say the IPCC is messing up like YECs say that geologists and evolutionary biologists are messing up.
Click to expand...

No one disputes the warming. Skeptics dispute claims of causation.:peace
 
Re: A rational climate article

ThreeGoofs' OP:

"..This has occurred despite the fact that claiming that global warming has "paused" is deeply misleading. The IPCC explained as much in its just-released report, where it noted that although the rate of warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, selectively seizing on this period, from 1998-2012, basically represents a case of bad statistics.

After all, the year 1998 was a Record temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're stacking the deck. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so slightly Greater than the long-term trend," explains Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the IPCC report. This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on 15 year periods and make a big thing about them. (For a more thorough rebuttal of the "pause" narrative, see here.)."""​

Graph I previously posted.
They're Still 'Going Down the Up Escalator'


NCDC_Escalator.gif
 
Re: A rational climate article

mbig said:
ThreeGoofs' OP:
"..This has occurred despite the fact that claiming that global warming has "paused" is deeply misleading. The IPCC explained as much in its just-released report, where it noted that although the rate of warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, selectively seizing on this period, from 1998-2012, basically represents a case of bad statistics.

After all, the year 1998 was a Record temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're stacking the deck. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so slightly Greater than the long-term trend," explains Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the IPCC report. This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on 15 year periods and make a big thing about them. (For a more thorough rebuttal of the "pause" narrative, see here.)."""​

Graph I previously posted.
They're Still 'Going Down the Up Escalator'


NCDC_Escalator.gif
Click to expand...

Yup. Skeptics like NASA's James Hansen, an uberwarmist.


Climate science

A sensitive matter

The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away

Mar 30th 2013 |From the print edition




20130330_STD001_1.jpg

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

20130330_STC334_1.png



Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.:peace
 
Re: A rational climate article

Jack Hays said:
.....OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.
Click to expand...
As Usual Jack, your post is NOT Responsive/Obtuse, a/Another Goofy Link Dump.

I explained WHY, ONLY by using "1998", that's Misleading; and showing, by Graph, how skeptics seize on multiple Non-representative Short blips in a General and strong UP trend.
Duh
So your merely Repeat the Busted Premise.
Duh.
Again:
"..This has occurred despite the fact that claiming that global warming has "paused" is deeply misleading. The IPCC explained as much in its just-released report, where it noted that although the rate of warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, selectively seizing on this period, from 1998-2012, basically represents a case of Bad Statistics.

After all, the year 1998 was a Record temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're stacking the deck. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so slightly Greater than the long-term trend,"
explains Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the IPCC report.
This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on 15 year periods and make a big thing about them. (For a more thorough rebuttal of the "pause" narrative, see here.)."""​

Understand Yet? Duh?

In fact:

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 Warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)

Year - Global - Land - Ocean

2010 0.6590 1.0748 0.5027
2005 0.6523 1.0505 0.5007
1998 0.6325 0.9351 0.5160
2003 0.6219 0.8859 0.5207
2002 0.6130 0.9351 0.4902
2006 0.5978 0.9091 0.4792
2009 0.5957 0.8621 0.4953
2007 0.5914 1.0886 0.3900
2004 0.5779 0.8132 0.4885
2012 0.5728 0.8968 0.4509​

ALL 1998 or AFTER
 
Last edited:
Re: A rational climate article

mbig said:
As Usual Jack, your post is NOT Responsive/Obtuse, a/Another Goofy Link Dump.

I explained WHY, ONLY by using "1998", that's Misleading; and showing, by Graph, how skeptics seize on multiple Non-representative Short blips in a General and strong UP trend.
Duh
So your merely Repeat the Busted Premise.
Duh.
Again:
"..This has occurred despite the fact that claiming that global warming has "paused" is deeply misleading. The IPCC explained as much in its just-released report, where it noted that although the rate of warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, selectively seizing on this period, from 1998-2012, basically represents a case of Bad Statistics.

After all, the year 1998 was a Record temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're stacking the deck. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so slightly Greater than the long-term trend,"
explains Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the IPCC report.
This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on 15 year periods and make a big thing about them. (For a more thorough rebuttal of the "pause" narrative, see here.)."""​

Understand Yet? Duh?

In fact:

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 Warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)

Year - Global - Land - Ocean

2010 0.6590 1.0748 0.5027
2005 0.6523 1.0505 0.5007
1998 0.6325 0.9351 0.5160
2003 0.6219 0.8859 0.5207
2002 0.6130 0.9351 0.4902
2006 0.5978 0.9091 0.4792
2009 0.5957 0.8621 0.4953
2007 0.5914 1.0886 0.3900
2004 0.5779 0.8132 0.4885
2012 0.5728 0.8968 0.4509​

ALL 1998 or AFTER
Click to expand...

You forget warmers used 1998 as evidence of warming then and for years after. If you don't think it correct to use that year, then take it up with your side who used to make their warming claims. If as the claims contend, there is warming and it is happening in proportion to CO2 levels, than there shouldn't be a pause in warming after 1998 or any time for that matter...

All of your underlining, bold-facing and one wikki link, does not change the point. And speaking of your one wikki link.... Says this right above your list...

"Although the NCDC temperature record begins in 1880, less certain reconstructions of earlier temperatures suggest these years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia."

What the heck dude? You just left out the part that puts your list into proper perspective and you accuse jack of being thick???

BTW.. Your list fails to mention 2010 and 2003 were also El Nino years.. Your argument about 1998 and El Nino seems to work both ways.. So does this mean those years on your list don't count?
 
Last edited:
Re: A rational climate article

mbig said:
As Usual Jack, your post is NOT Responsive/Obtuse, a/Another Goofy Link Dump.

I explained WHY, ONLY by using "1998", that's Misleading; and showing, by Graph, how skeptics seize on multiple Non-representative Short blips in a General and strong UP trend.
Duh
So your merely Repeat the Busted Premise.
Duh.
Again:
"..This has occurred despite the fact that claiming that global warming has "paused" is deeply misleading. The IPCC explained as much in its just-released report, where it noted that although the rate of warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, selectively seizing on this period, from 1998-2012, basically represents a case of Bad Statistics.

After all, the year 1998 was a Record temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're stacking the deck. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so slightly Greater than the long-term trend,"
explains Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the IPCC report.
This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on 15 year periods and make a big thing about them. (For a more thorough rebuttal of the "pause" narrative, see here.)."""​

Understand Yet? Duh?

In fact:

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 Warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)

Year - Global - Land - Ocean

2010 0.6590 1.0748 0.5027
2005 0.6523 1.0505 0.5007
1998 0.6325 0.9351 0.5160
2003 0.6219 0.8859 0.5207
2002 0.6130 0.9351 0.4902
2006 0.5978 0.9091 0.4792
2009 0.5957 0.8621 0.4953
2007 0.5914 1.0886 0.3900
2004 0.5779 0.8132 0.4885
2012 0.5728 0.8968 0.4509​

ALL 1998 or AFTER
Click to expand...

Your denial notwithstanding, the pause remains a reality. James Hansen agrees with me. You can't really engage the topic meaningfully until you get past your denial.:mrgreen:
 
Re: A rational climate article

Jack Hays said:
Your denial notwithstanding, the pause remains a reality. James Hansen agrees with me. You can't really engage the topic meaningfully until you get past your denial.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
ALL your posts are Clownish and Empty.
You just Link Duhmp or refer to/Repeat previous Duhmps - UNABLE to debate or respond to Specific objection - Utterly/Famously NON-conversant on Any topic.
 
Last edited:
Re: A rational climate article

mbig said:
ALL your posts are Clownish and Empty.
You just Link Duhmp or refer to/Repeat previous Duhmps - UNABLE to debate or respond to Specific objection - Utterly/Famously NON-conversant on Any topic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't seem to be the content-free poster in this exchange. You're just frustrated because the substance is beyond your depth.:mrgreen:
 
Re: A rational climate article

mbig said:
ALL your posts are Clownish and Empty.
You just Link Duhmp or refer to/Repeat previous Duhmps - UNABLE to debate or respond to Specific objection - Utterly/Famously NON-conversant on Any topic.
Click to expand...

And you post a graph by an alarmist cartoonist in support of your position and expect to be taken more seriously of course ? Purleez :roll:
 
Re: A rational climate article

mbig said:
I explained WHY, ONLY by using "1998", that's Misleading; and showing, by Graph, how skeptics seize on multiple Non-representative Short blips in a General and strong UP trend.
Duh
Click to expand...
Call me when Glowbull warming gets back into gear and years become regularly warmer than 1998.
With the continuing increase in CO2 emissions, it's high time Trenberth's (missing) deep ocean heat got back to work.

It's all very well blindly following the science, but it's a good idea to follow the money as well.
 
Re: A rational climate article

Earthling said:
Call me when Glowbull warming gets back into gear and years become regularly warmer than 1998.
With the continuing increase in CO2 emissions, it's high time Trenberth's (missing) deep ocean heat got back to work.

It's all very well blindly following the science, but it's a good idea to follow the money as well.
Click to expand...

1998 had the strongest el nino in recorded history (possibly matched in 1889) but according to NASA's global land-ocean temperature index data, 2005, 2007 and 2010 were all hotter than 1998 even with weaker el ninos. Likewise the la nina years (1999/2000 vs 2008 and 2011) have demonstrated an upwards temperature trend.

Follow the money? A handful of public figures, sensationalists or money-grubbing hypocrites might've made some quick bucks jetting around the world declaring how terrible planes are for the planet. But you don't really think that there's some conspiracy amongst 90+% of climatologists to deceive governments in the hopes of getting more funding, do you? If so, some evidence would be nice.

By contrast, a lot of people - and especially businesses - stand to lose money or luxuries if any real regulation of carbon emissions were put in place. That's the very central point of opposition to effective action on climate change: We'll lose money! It'll destroy our economies!

Probably doesn't cost nearly as much to sponser a few qualified deniers, add a bunch of junk science sites and blogs, and promote the conspiracy theories that it's the scientists who are trying to pull one over us :doh As has been mentioned earlier in the thread - perceptively, though not very politely - we've got and already well-established example of this kind of pattern in the case of evolution 'scepticism,' denial and alternative 'theories.'
 
Re: A rational climate article

Mithrae said:
1998 had the strongest el nino in recorded history (possibly matched in 1889) but according to NASA's global land-ocean temperature index data, 2005, 2007 and 2010 were all hotter than 1998 even with weaker el ninos. Likewise the la nina years (1999/2000 vs 2008 and 2011) have demonstrated an upwards temperature trend.

Follow the money? A handful of public figures, sensationalists or money-grubbing hypocrites might've made some quick bucks jetting around the world declaring how terrible planes are for the planet. But you don't really think that there's some conspiracy amongst 90+% of climatologists to deceive governments in the hopes of getting more funding, do you? If so, some evidence would be nice.

By contrast, a lot of people - and especially businesses - stand to lose money or luxuries if any real regulation of carbon emissions were put in place. That's the very central point of opposition to effective action on climate change: We'll lose money! It'll destroy our economies!

Probably doesn't cost nearly as much to sponser a few qualified deniers, add a bunch of junk science sites and blogs, and promote the conspiracy theories that it's the scientists who are trying to pull one over us :doh As has been mentioned earlier in the thread - perceptively, though not very politely - we've got and already well-established example of this kind of pattern in the case of evolution 'scepticism,' denial and alternative 'theories.'
Click to expand...

So then we can expect an apology and retraction from the media,and various climate change sources who used that year specifically to make bold claims regarding evidence of warming?

I love this double standard you have.. Must make things so much easier when you aren't expected to abide by the same standards in your climate change argument as you try and hold everyone else..
 
Re: A rational climate article

Earthling said:
It's all very well blindly following the science, but it's a good idea to follow the money as well.
Click to expand...

The politicians have gotten what they paid for, a taxable fear that could never be disproven in the real world. What little genuine science there actually is on this issue got lost a long time ago sadly behind shonky opinion polls and appeals to bogus authority :(
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom