• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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 Scourge of Climate Change

Tim the plumber said:

Humanity came through the end of the last ice age, and indeed some of it's advances. This tiny climate change you are noticing because you are looking for it is very slight in comparison with many periods of climate change we have witnessed. And a nice one where the weather gets better.
Click to expand...

I never said that humanity won't adapt to climate change. However, we have risen a degree so far. You might think that is small, but a difference of 5 degrees globally is all that separates are climate today and the climate of the last great ice age when the northern third of the continental United States was under glaciers. Point being that small changes in global temperatures can mean big differences in the global environment.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I never said that humanity won't adapt to climate change. However, we have risen a degree so far. You might think that is small, but a difference of 5 degrees globally is all that separates are climate today and the climate of the last great ice age when the northern third of the continental United States was under glaciers. Point being that small changes in global temperatures can mean big differences in the global environment.
Click to expand...

Yes, if it was a degree colder I would be worried. A degree warmer is a good thing. We a tropical species.
 
LowDown said:
Let me show you how it works. Data from the CERES satellite indicated that there was an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere of 6 W/M2 over a five year period. James Hansen thought that was implausible, and it is. It would mean that temperatures were increasing a lot faster than they were.

So what the real data tells us is that the satellite instruments were not ready for prime time -- they generate garbage. So we DON'T KNOW what the TOA energy imbalance is or was. So what does Hansen do? He used climate model outputs to "adjust" the data! He fixed the energy imbalance measurements to match the models!

So Trenberth comes along and says that there must be heat hiding somewhere because we know that there has been an energy imbalance at the TOA; i.e. more heat coming to the earth than is going out, but temperatures haven't been increasing. So he goes off searching for the heat (with his climate models) on the basis of data that is nothing more than model outputs. Then the fudged data was used to adjust ARGO buoy data to show that, yes, heat was increasing in the oceans. They had to throw the data from half the buoys out as defective to come up with that conclusion. That finding has since been contested, and other researchers say that there are good reasons to believe that the Pacific deep waters are actually cooling.

Which is why we say there is most likely no heat hiding anywhere -- there was probably never an imbalance at the TOA in the first place. That whole line of evidence started with climate models.
Click to expand...
I have long wondered, at the hubris necessary to say we can accurately measure all of the energy entering and leaving earth.
We can make very educated guesses, but we cannot even measure the entire electromagnetic spectrum,
much less other types of energy we may not have guessed about yet.
It has just been a few years that they knew thunderstorms give off gamma.
Why Do Thunderstorms Give Off Super-Intense Gamma Rays? : Discovery News
 
longview said:
I have long wondered, at the hubris necessary to say we can accurately measure all of the energy entering and leaving earth.
We can make very educated guesses, but we cannot even measure the entire electromagnetic spectrum,
much less other types of energy we may not have guessed about yet.
It has just been a few years that they knew thunderstorms give off gamma.
Why Do Thunderstorms Give Off Super-Intense Gamma Rays? : Discovery News
Click to expand...

I have long wondered about the hubris necessary to claim things which are totally untrue.

The energy balance is always presented with confidence intervals.

332ebd4b2ef785821e603f5332669d82.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
I have long wondered about the hubris necessary to claim things which are totally untrue.

The energy balance is always presented with confidence intervals.

332ebd4b2ef785821e603f5332669d82.jpg
Click to expand...

Why have you come out with this again??

I have pointed out that if you understand what this is saying then the conclusion that there will not be a whole degree of warming by 2100 over now is inevitable. That's assuming their top 2.4 W/m2 figure.

If you work out the amount of CO2 in the air now as a fraction of the initial pre-industrial level and then work out how long it will be before we add that fraction to the present level to get the same degree of additional heat you will find you are well into the next century.

Then you need to understand what that much heating will do. You are adding 2.4 W/m2 to a general energy budget of 320ish W/m2. Work this out as a fraction and then multiply that by the temperature. That's in K, the temperature above absolute zero. That will give you the new balance point for the increased energy budget. Easy. Obvious.

Less than a degree. Unfortunate, more would be nice.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I never said that humanity won't adapt to climate change. However, we have risen a degree so far. You might think that is small, but a difference of 5 degrees globally is all that separates are climate today and the climate of the last great ice age when the northern third of the continental United States was under glaciers. Point being that small changes in global temperatures can mean big differences in the global environment.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are scientists that say that risen a degree. However, there are records that suggest that we very likely had a couple times warmer in the past few hundred thousand years as well. I think that because of incorrect corrections, that we have actually only risen about half of what's claimed.

There is no acceptable certainty that this last two decades of peak temperatures claimed are unusual. There is plenty of scientific knowledge that suggests it is natural.

Man made or not, I'm OK with even more warming I don't see it as any global catastrophe. I see this whole campaign as being fueled by the quest for money and power.

I challenge you, and others, to convince me that I am wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
I have long wondered about the hubris necessary to claim things which are totally untrue.

The energy balance is always presented with confidence intervals.

332ebd4b2ef785821e603f5332669d82.jpg
Click to expand...
Who watches the watcher...

Who measured the confidence levels of those claiming confidence levels...
 
Tim the plumber said:

Why have you come out with this again??

I have pointed out that if you understand what this is saying then the conclusion that there will not be a whole degree of warming by 2100 over now is inevitable. That's assuming their top 2.4 W/m2 figure.

If you work out the amount of CO2 in the air now as a fraction of the initial pre-industrial level and then work out how long it will be before we add that fraction to the present level to get the same degree of additional heat you will find you are well into the next century.

Then you need to understand what that much heating will do. You are adding 2.4 W/m2 to a general energy budget of 320ish W/m2. Work this out as a fraction and then multiply that by the temperature. That's in K, the temperature above absolute zero. That will give you the new balance point for the increased energy budget. Easy. Obvious.

Less than a degree. Unfortunate, more would be nice.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but I was doing some reading on meteorology measuring unit accuracies.

I suggest people do such searches and read...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Sure, there are scientists that say that risen a degree. However, there are records that suggest that we very likely had a couple times warmer in the past few hundred thousand years as well. I think that because of incorrect corrections, that we have actually only risen about half of what's claimed.

There is no acceptable certainty that this last two decades of peak temperatures claimed are unusual. There is plenty of scientific knowledge that suggests it is natural.

Man made or not, I'm OK with even more warming I don't see it as any global catastrophe. I see this whole campaign as being fueled by the quest for money and power.

I challenge you, and others, to convince me that I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to show where its in the economic interest of any developed nation to mitigate its carbon emissions. There is far more money in the status quo than there is in trying to curb carbon emissions and that is why we will never do it regardless of how strong the science is.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not only that, but I was doing some reading on meteorology measuring unit accuracies.

I suggest people do such searches and read...
Click to expand...

I am not even bothering with that. My bafflement is that we are supposedly measuring the altitude of the entire ocean surface at once to mm accuracy. Well I've been to the sea side and I can't say that I would be able to measure the sea level at any poin at any time to an accuracy of 10cm. The thing has waves an it.

They are also putting this mm data next to the historic sea level data from harbour masters records which were used for navigation. They aired on the side of caution, they did not want ships hitting rocks. They also did it by looking out of the window. Apples and pears?

Also, sea level relative to what? The center of the Earth? How do you measure where that is? I think they callibrate the satelites using astronomical telescopes. That's why Liverpool is more stable than others. It's 20 mile from Joderal Bank.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I challenge you to show where its in the economic interest of any developed nation to mitigate its carbon emissions. There is far more money in the status quo than there is in trying to curb carbon emissions and that is why we will never do it regardless of how strong the science is.
Click to expand...

You are agreeing with him but I think you have an opinion that the science says that there is a problem. I don't see that it does.
 
Threegoofs said:
I have long wondered about the hubris necessary to claim things which are totally untrue.

The energy balance is always presented with confidence intervals.
Click to expand...
And if those confidence intervals were accurate, and included all of the possible variables,
The models would not be wrong by such a large factor.
What was the factor mentioned in Nature,
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it.
Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest
that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming
during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade,
as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom