• 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!

STUDY: 'Global warming' has made weather better for most in USA...

MrT said:
Only if you assume that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that we are adding to the atmosphere/the only source of global warming or that the
decreased influence of each added unit of CO2 is not countered by the increasing rate at which CO2 was added to the atmosphere over that time period.
Click to expand...
If any assumptions are made it is from the IPCC, and the doubling curve is theirs also.
But think for a minuet what you just said!
or that the decreased influence of each added unit of CO2 is not countered by
the increasing rate at which CO2 was added to the atmosphere
Click to expand...
How much would CO2 levels have to accelerate each year to keep up, much less get ahead?
It is unlikely we will ever achieve the first doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm, and at 400 ppm
we have already passed the first 62 % of the possible direct warming from the current doubling.
This means even if we added 160 ppm of CO2 tomorrow, we could only get 38% of the remaining
doubling warming.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The quotations are pretty good example of the hype used to hook the gullible into the whole AGW schtick. You said they were qualified. I asked for the qualifications. You said margin of error was a qualification. I asked you for the margin of error they put into those statements.

At some point I think thinking people ask themselves how many time they are willing to be fooled or misled or manipulated or flat out lied to before they figure out those they have trusted are not trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Ok, seriously - stop with the whole passive aggressive method of calling me, or individuals that agree with AGW, morons. If you think I am stupid for listening to 97% of climatologists that actively publish in this field, then call me stupid. Seriously. It is getting ****ing annoying to read the same type of backhanded and snide "oh why won't they learn" comment with every post you make.

And no, I am not going to find qualifications or margins of error within the quotes that you laid out because you are setting the parameters of the search. That is absurd. If you want to find the qualifications for the IPCC predictions, then go here. If you want the qualifications for NASA's evaluation that 2014 was the hottest year on record, then you can go here. If you want the qualifications for the NOAA in terms of their global temperature measurements, then go here. If you want the margins of error for the GISS in terms of their accuracy, then you can go here.
 
longview said:
If any assumptions are made it is from the IPCC, and the doubling curve is theirs also.
Click to expand...

The IPCC devotes a fairly extensive amount of discussion to warming contributions that come from sources other than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. You are severely limiting your discussion by solely relying on that quoted section. In fact, the quoted section that you've included has this very phrase that I am bolding for emphasis.

In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex.

longview said:
But think for a minuet what you just said!
How much would CO2 levels have to accelerate each year to keep up, much less get ahead? It is unlikely we will ever achieve the first doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm, and at 400 ppm we have already passed the first 62 % of the possible direct warming from the current doubling. This means even if we added 160 ppm of CO2 tomorrow, we could only get 38% of the remaining doubling warming.
Click to expand...

Again, you are severely limiting yourself by only focusing on CO2 and the direct additive effect of CO2 concentration.
 
MrT said:
The IPCC devotes a fairly extensive amount of discussion to warming contributions that come from sources other than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. You are severely limiting your discussion by solely relying on that quoted section. In fact, the quoted section that you've included has this very phrase that I am bolding for emphasis.

In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex.



Again, you are severely limiting yourself by only focusing on CO2 and the direct additive effect of CO2 concentration.
Click to expand...

It is not me who is focusing on CO2, but the IPCC.
While the IPCC acknowledge the other feedbacks, the solutions for AGW all focus on reducing CO2 emissions.
There are clearly many feedbacks in the climate system, many are negative feedbacks.
The IPCC admits they have a broad uncertainty range, yet downplay that the uncertainty
exceeds the predicted amplified warming.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies
the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of
this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds
and their interactions with radiation.
Click to expand...
So the direct warming from CO2 is 1.2°C, but they believe the ECS will be between
1.5 to 4.5°C.
Hum input is 1.2 °C, believed amplification factor between .25 and 3.75 times input.
with the 3 C uncertainty range coming from our limited knowledge of clouds and radiation.
 
MrT said:
Ok, seriously - stop with the whole passive aggressive method of calling me, or individuals that agree with AGW, morons. If you think I am stupid for listening to 97% of climatologists that actively publish in this field, then call me stupid. Seriously. It is getting ****ing annoying to read the same type of backhanded and snide "oh why won't they learn" comment with every post you make.

And no, I am not going to find qualifications or margins of error within the quotes that you laid out because you are setting the parameters of the search. That is absurd. If you want to find the qualifications for the IPCC predictions, then go here. If you want the qualifications for NASA's evaluation that 2014 was the hottest year on record, then you can go here. If you want the qualifications for the NOAA in terms of their global temperature measurements, then go here. If you want the margins of error for the GISS in terms of their accuracy, then you can go here.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow we are supposed to pretend people who disagree with the vast majority of the people who study this issue for a living are noble searchers of truth.

I did for a while, but it's pretty friggin clear that only a moron can state that there is not a scientific consensus on this issue, and only a drooling, delusional moron can think the calculations at their kitchen table (using the values that actual scientists obtain) disprove AGW.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet somehow we are supposed to pretend people who disagree with the vast majority of the people who study this issue for a living are noble searchers of truth.

I did for a while, but it's pretty friggin clear that only a moron can state that there is not a scientific consensus on this issue, and only a drooling, delusional moron can think the calculations at their kitchen table (using the values that actual scientists obtain) disprove AGW.
Click to expand...
But the weather is much nicer now that we have global warming. Just ask the folks in Texas. Or in Colorado. This guy is loving it:

pb-101222-snow-colorado.photoblog900.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet somehow we are supposed to pretend people who disagree with the vast majority of the people who study this issue for a living are noble searchers of truth.

I did for a while, but it's pretty friggin clear that only a moron can state that there is not a scientific consensus on this issue, and only a drooling, delusional moron can think the calculations at their kitchen table (using the values that actual scientists obtain) disprove AGW.
Click to expand...
Goofs, you have never admitted that the consensus is about CO2 being a greenhouse gas only,
not the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC.
Look at NASA's Scientific consensus statement,
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
Ask your self could that statement be satisfied without any of the IPCC's predicted
amplified feedback?
If you accept the IPCC's own number for CO2's direct response at 1.2 °C for a doubling of CO2,
then you must also admit that the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is sufficient
to satisfy NASA's statement. To do otherwise would be to deny the Science.
(In case someone is interested in the math)
1.73*ln(560/280)=1.2°C (rounded from 1.199446)
1.73*ln(400/280)=.617°C
 
Actually SE Texas has had a very nice spring,
We have had some flooding, but it not as unusual as they are implying.
One must bear in mind that Houston gets more rain than Seattle,
49 inches vs 39 inches per year,
ours just comes in burst mode!
 
longview said:
Goofs, you have never admitted that the consensus is about CO2 being a greenhouse gas only,
not the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC.
Look at NASA's Scientific consensus statement,
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Ask your self could that statement be satisfied without any of the IPCC's predicted
amplified feedback?
If you accept the IPCC's own number for CO2's direct response at 1.2 °C for a doubling of CO2,
then you must also admit that the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is sufficient
to satisfy NASA's statement. To do otherwise would be to deny the Science.
(In case someone is interested in the math)
1.73*ln(560/280)=1.2°C (rounded from 1.199446)
1.73*ln(400/280)=.617°C
Click to expand...

This is really getting old.


Again, 200 major scientific organizations put out statements on this specifically to stop morons from pretending there is some sort of controversy.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

As an example:

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

Or:

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

These people really cannot make it any clearer.
 
Threegoofs said:
This is really getting old.


Again, 200 major scientific organizations put out statements on this specifically to stop morons from pretending there is some sort of controversy.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

As an example:

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

Or:

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

These people really cannot make it any clearer.
Click to expand...
And yet the Science does not back up their statements, their credibility will eventually have to
answer for the overreaching statements of whoever writes that for those organizations.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh yeah? Weeellll, if it wasn't for those 6 million Priuses all those predictions would have happened.
Whew!

Seriously,
when a cooling period begins the climate cabal will take credit it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yep - saved the planet. I drove a Prius back from the west coast last fall. Prolly saved a small town, like Grundy, VA, with my effort. No, heh, no - no thanks are needed. Just call me Corporal Planet. I'll make Captain one day.
 
longview said:
And yet the Science does not back up their statements, their credibility will eventually have to
answer for the overreaching statements of whoever writes that for those organizations.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Says consensus doesnt exist.

Given evidence that consensus DOES exist.

New position is now that the consensus is wrong.

In another thread a week later, the position will again be that a consensus doesn't exist.
 
MickeyW said:
We just went through a 3 day hot spell here......and broke records set in.............wait for it........................the 1930s.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the right-media echo chamber recently shouting about how the Earth is actually COOLING?
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Says consensus doesnt exist.

Given evidence that consensus DOES exist.

New position is now that the consensus is wrong.

In another thread a week later, the position will again be that a consensus doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
It is the topic of the consensus, The consensus is just about that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a somewhat accepted direct response warming.
Anything beyond that is speculation, look at the IPCC's own statement, on the
amplified feedback.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies
the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of
this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds
and their interactions with radiation.
Click to expand...
That range sure expresses confidence, doesn't it?
 
longview said:
It is the topic of the consensus, The consensus is just about that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a somewhat accepted direct response warming.
Anything beyond that is speculation, look at the IPCC's own statement, on the
amplified feedback.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

That range sure expresses confidence, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

You mean having a mean increase of about 3 degrees c, which would be quite damaging to the environment?

Again, the consensus, as I painstakingly cut and pasted for you, is not that AGW exists, but that AGW exists AND ITS A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
 
longview said:
It is the topic of the consensus, The consensus is just about that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
with a somewhat accepted direct response warming.
Anything beyond that is speculation, look at the IPCC's own statement, on the
amplified feedback.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

That range sure expresses confidence, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
But there is a scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is warming due to human activity, and that we need to do something about it before it's too late.
 
Threegoofs said:
You mean having a mean increase of about 3 degrees c, which would be quite damaging to the environment?

Again, the consensus, as I painstakingly cut and pasted for you, is not that AGW exists, but that AGW exists AND ITS A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
Click to expand...
Except the 3°C is less and less likely all the time, and is predicated on us actually being able to double
the CO2 level, Both are in question! More and more papers are lowering the predictions.
 
longview said:
So far as I know only Dr. David Evans is saying we may start cooling.
Click to expand...

So the only person who has made this claim is an electrical engineer, not a climatologist? Then why have conservatives acted like it is gospel? Are they just clinging on to any anti-GW claim they can find? (rhetorical question, really)
 
longview said:
Except the 3°C is less and less likely all the time, and is predicated on us actually being able to double
the CO2 level, Both are in question! More and more papers are lowering the predictions.
Click to expand...

Gee, maybe that will change the consensus you've been pretending doesn't exist.
 
Geoist said:
So the only person who has made this claim is an electrical engineer, not a climatologist? Then why have conservatives acted like it is gospel? Are they just clinging on to any anti-GW claim they can find? (rhetorical question, really)
Click to expand...

Well, he made the claim on a blog, and as we know, deniers consider blogs equivalent to PNAS. Well, some blogs...
 
MrT said:
Ok, seriously - stop with the whole passive aggressive method of calling me, or individuals that agree with AGW, morons. If you think I am stupid for listening to 97% of climatologists that actively publish in this field, then call me stupid. Seriously. It is getting ****ing annoying to read the same type of backhanded and snide "oh why won't they learn" comment with every post you make.

And no, I am not going to find qualifications or margins of error within the quotes that you laid out because you are setting the parameters of the search. That is absurd. If you want to find the qualifications for the IPCC predictions, then go here. If you want the qualifications for NASA's evaluation that 2014 was the hottest year on record, then you can go here. If you want the qualifications for the NOAA in terms of their global temperature measurements, then go here. If you want the margins of error for the GISS in terms of their accuracy, then you can go here.
Click to expand...

Translation. You cannot justify the comments made or rebut that they were misstatements or flat out wrong. That's cool. I am just more picky about those I put my trust in I guess. But do have a nice day.
 
longview said:
And yet the Science does not back up their statements, their credibility will eventually have to
answer for the overreaching statements of whoever writes that for those organizations.
Click to expand...

You may not have noticed, but the positions by those groups NASA listed seem to be simply "We think whatever the IPCC said."
Which means they didn't do any research and have no freaking idea themselves so they just go with the guys they know have a steady public funded income like themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom