• 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!

Will Trump Usher in the End of the World?

I see that the internet chat room accredited global warmist scientists are all out in force again tonight.

:wcm:wcm:wcm
 
calamity said:
I'll try to remember that when I am wearing shorts on Christmas and New Year instead of shoveling snow like I usually do.
Click to expand...
You should keep in mind that the climate changes on it own anyway,
The question with AGW always has been how to resolve the anthropological component.
Since the warming recorded since 1880 is only about 1 C, the changes you describe would be weather and not AGW.
To be fair the majority of the warming that has occurred has been seasonally in winter nights.
 
longview said:
It does ask the question why the IPCC did not include their best estimate in the report.
Click to expand...

I've talked with a scientist who worked on one of the earlier IPCC reports. Politicians always want to water the report down.
 
longview said:
You should keep in mind that the climate changes on it own anyway,
The question with AGW always has been how to resolve the anthropological component.
Since the warming recorded since 1880 is only about 1 C, the changes you describe would be weather and not AGW.
To be fair the majority of the warming that has occurred has been seasonally in winter nights.
Click to expand...

Personally, I like the idea of wearing shorts on Christmas.
 
late said:
I've talked with a scientist who worked on one of the earlier IPCC reports. Politicians always want to water the report down.
Click to expand...
The IPCC also purged some of the early Scientist like Richard Lindzen, who's findings showed a much lower ECS.
Also Their reason for not stating a best estimate for ECS was given and quoted in post #42.
because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
Click to expand...
You must keep in mind if the IPCC finds very low ECS results, there is no need for an IPCC.
 
calamity said:
Personally, I like the idea of wearing shorts on Christmas.
Click to expand...
Side stepping the idea that you posited in post #49 about the wearing of shorts on on Christmas and New Year,
was somehow evidence of AGW.
 
longview said:
Side stepping the idea that you posited in post #49 about the wearing of shorts on on Christmas and New Year,
was somehow evidence of AGW.
Click to expand...

I'm not side-stepping. It clearly shows something is up, and AGW is a fairly good explanation for it. But, do I mind wearing shorts at Christmas instead of shoveling snow? Hell, I hope my home turns into ocean front property.
 
calamity said:
I'm not side-stepping. It clearly shows something is up, and AGW is a fairly good explanation for it. But, do I mind wearing shorts at Christmas instead of shoveling snow? Hell, I hope my home turns into ocean front property.
Click to expand...
But you understand that all of the AGW attributed warming so far (roughly .6C, as .3 C is attributed to increases in solar activity)
would not change the temperature in any way a human would casually notice.
The climate does change, and some of that change is likely a result of more CO2,
Likely the only human noticeable change would be the expansion of the plant hardiness zones,
but that has been over several decades.
 
longview said:
But you understand that all of the AGW attributed warming so far (roughly .6C, as .3 C is attributed to increases in solar activity)
would not change the temperature in any way a human would casually notice.
The climate does change, and some of that change is likely a result of more CO2,
Likely the only human noticeable change would be the expansion of the plant hardiness zones,
but that has been over several decades.
Click to expand...

Not from what I'm reading.
 
calamity said:
Not from what I'm reading.
Click to expand...
Cite a source!
The formula for CO2 caused warming if we use the IPCC direct response rate of 1.2 C
is 1.73 * ln(403/280)=.6299 C
and Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Fact Sheet : Feature Articles
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be
responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001).
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
Cite a source!
The formula for CO2 caused warming if we use the IPCC direct response rate of 1.2 C
is 1.73 * ln(403/280)=.6299 C
and Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Fact Sheet : Feature Articles
Click to expand...
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet's content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued steadily after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space. Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades.

...Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun's output, could not produce these patterns.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Click to expand...
The records of the deep ocean temperature are much less regular than the land and sea surface temperature.
Since 2004 we have had the Argo system, but we have minimal data before that.
There are still many questions surrounding CO2 and it's greenhouse effect,
Why is the effect so much greater at night?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
Why is the effect so much greater in the cooler months?
Why is the effect mostly isolated in the Northern Hemisphere?
In 1995 Hansen believed the diurnal asymmetry could correct itself as the damping disappeared,
20 years on the ratio is almost the same with roughly 75% of the warming being at night.
 
longview said:
The records of the deep ocean temperature are much less regular than the land and sea surface temperature.
Since 2004 we have had the Argo system, but we have minimal data before that.
There are still many questions surrounding CO2 and it's greenhouse effect,
Why is the effect so much greater at night?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
Why is the effect so much greater in the cooler months?
Why is the effect mostly isolated in the Northern Hemisphere?
In 1995 Hansen believed the diurnal asymmetry could correct itself as the damping disappeared,
20 years on the ratio is almost the same with roughly 75% of the warming being at night.
Click to expand...

"...as predicted only sooner, the world was beginning to suffer historically unprecedented heat waves, droughts, floods and storms. The sea level was rising while mountain glaciers, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and Arctic sea ice melted back, all at accelerating rates. Important ecosystems from alpine meadows to coral reefs were showing signs of stress. For the scientists, as one of them remarked, "Seeing their own predictions come true has been a frightening experience."(62) Some researchers turned from predicting future warming to identifying how far some of the extreme weather events of the 2000's could already be attributed to human-caused climate change."
 
KLATTU said:
Still with the race card?(eye roll) Good grief-you people just don't learn do you?
Click to expand...

Lazy mental habits are hard to break.
 
calamity said:
"...as predicted only sooner, the world was beginning to suffer historically unprecedented heat waves, droughts, floods and storms. The sea level was rising while mountain glaciers, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and Arctic sea ice melted back, all at accelerating rates. Important ecosystems from alpine meadows to coral reefs were showing signs of stress. For the scientists, as one of them remarked, "Seeing their own predictions come true has been a frightening experience."(62) Some researchers turned from predicting future warming to identifying how far some of the extreme weather events of the 2000's could already be attributed to human-caused climate change."
Click to expand...
We were already warming, the only thing unprecedented about heat waves, droughts, floods and storms is the reporting,
and the rate of sea level rise is same as it has been for over 200 years.
It is possible to point to all sorts of natural events and say, "this is evidence of AGW!!!" but the reality is the
observed events are all well within the normal range.
Weather has extreme ups and downs, the right combination of which can appear extraordinary,
yet history tells us it has mostly happened before.
Sea Level Trends - State Selection
 
longview said:
We were already warming, the only thing unprecedented about heat waves, droughts, floods and storms is the reporting,
and the rate of sea level rise is same as it has been for over 200 years.
It is possible to point to all sorts of natural events and say, "this is evidence of AGW!!!" but the reality is the
observed events are all well within the normal range.
Weather has extreme ups and downs, the right combination of which can appear extraordinary,
yet history tells us it has mostly happened before.
Sea Level Trends - State Selection
Click to expand...

The article I posted makes a strong case. You can either accept it or deny it. I don't really care which you choose.
 
calamity said:
The article I posted makes a strong case. You can either accept it or deny it. I don't really care which you choose.
Click to expand...
Their strong case is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which was not in contention.
The Climate sensitivity (ECS)of the added CO2 is what is in question.
The IPCC started with the range of 1.5 to 4.5 C,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
IPCC AR4 changed the range to 2 C to 4.5 C,
and IPCC AR5 went back down to 1.5 to 4.5 C.
The observable data points to an ECS of between 1.8 and 2 C for a doubling of the CO2 level.
At the current rates CO2 could double by about 2070,
this assumption is based on an ever expanding access to inexpensive oil, which does not seem likely.
We have already located and exploited the cheap, easy oil, what remains is neither cheap or easy.
Fracking is evidence of the supply being limited. The fracking produced an oversupply,
which if anything, demonstrated the poor risk reward of fracking oil wells.
It increases the flow, at the expense of well life.
Oil has a very finite future, of roughly $100 a barrel, and few investors will risk capital
if that is the limit of the return.
 
longview said:
Their strong case is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which was not in contention.
The Climate sensitivity (ECS)of the added CO2 is what is in question.
The IPCC started with the range of 1.5 to 4.5 C,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
IPCC AR4 changed the range to 2 C to 4.5 C,
and IPCC AR5 went back down to 1.5 to 4.5 C.
The observable data points to an ECS of between 1.8 and 2 C for a doubling of the CO2 level.
At the current rates CO2 could double by about 2070,
this assumption is based on an ever expanding access to inexpensive oil, which does not seem likely.
We have already located and exploited the cheap, easy oil, what remains is neither cheap or easy.
Fracking is evidence of the supply being limited. The fracking produced an oversupply,
which if anything, demonstrated the poor risk reward of fracking oil wells.
It increases the flow, at the expense of well life.
Oil has a very finite future, of roughly $100 a barrel, and few investors will risk capital
if that is the limit of the return.
Click to expand...

Here's how I see the above argument.

There is strong evidence that smoking cigarettes causes heart disease and lung cancer. Now, did the fact that Charlie smoked 4 packs of cigarettes per day for 25 years cause him to die of a massive heart attack at age-50, or was it the deep fried chicken and greasy potatoes that he loved to eat so much?
 
calamity said:
Here's how I see the above argument.

There is strong evidence that smoking cigarettes causes heart disease and lung cancer. Now, did the fact that Charlie smoked 4 packs of cigarettes per day for 25 years cause him to die of a massive heart attack at age-50, or was it the deep fried chicken and greasy potatoes that he loved to eat so much?
Click to expand...
The cigarette analogy has always been a poor one.
I believe carbon monoxide has a laboratory measurable harmful effect on Hemoglobin within seconds.
The case for CO2 being harmful to the climate is not so clear cut or even measurable.
CO2 does appear to cause some warming, the question is how much, and is said warming harmful or beneficial.
Expanding the plant hardiness zones could have some negative effects on chill hour crops, but the latency of the change
would likely exceed the crop rotation cycle.(I think apple orchards produce at peak for about 30 years.)
Meanwhile warmer winter evenings will allow a wider variety of crops further north, while not diminishing warm weather crops.
Colder averages would be very bad, warmer, not so much!
The other negative aspects, do not seem to be materializing, sea levels have not accelerated,
and the instances of catastrophic weather, is more a factor of better coverage than a greater number of events.
 
longview said:
So when 15 of the lead authors of IPCC AR5 write an article in the journal Nature,
showing how the empirical data supports a best estimate ECS of 2C,
It does ask the question why the IPCC did not include their best estimate in the report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
View attachment 67209909
Click to expand...

So when your dishonest claims are pointed out to you several times what do you do? Ignore it and Keep on denying.

Quaestio said:
No. Best estimate for ECS was still centred around 3 C on the graphic in the AR5 WG1 report.

See Chapter 12, page 1110 Box 12.2

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

Also see Chapter 10 section 8.2 pages 920-926
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
Click to expand...

Quaestio said:
That's just one article by Otto et al based on a simple model over a short period. It was published in 2013 after the cut-off date for the AR5 report (2012). Otto et all acknowledge themselves that it should be interpreted with caution. Try doing a Google Scholar search for the Otto et al paper and note more recent papers that cited that paper and read them.
There have been many climate sensitivity studies published since then, as shown in that Google Scholar search of papers published since 2012. I doubt you'll find many that say that 2C is the most likely ECS, especially the paleo based ones.

Are you not able to read papers published in paywalled Journals? If not, then how can you claim you know what 'the available data shows' when you can't even read most of the papers?
Click to expand...


Quaestio said:
Otto et al 2013 is not the 'most recent papers', it's just one paper and it's now several years old. Read what the authors themselves say about it.
Try using some scientific curiosity and do a literature search instead of relying only on what you read on climate truther 'skeptic' blogs.

For example, search for the term 'climate sensitivity' since 2013 in Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=climate+sensitivity&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2013&as_yhi=2016
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm afraid he's got you cornered.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid he cornered himself and exposed himself again by being dishonest and denying science he doesn't like - as usual.
But never fear, I'm sure he'll keep on posting the same thing, over and over again - like a prayer.
 
longview said:
The IPCC also purged some of the early Scientist like Richard Lindzen, who's findings showed a much lower ECS.
Also Their reason for not stating a best estimate for ECS was given and quoted in post #42.

You must keep in mind if the IPCC finds very low ECS results, there is no need for an IPCC.
Click to expand...

More dishonest conspiracy nuttery from you. A real 'sceptic' would search the literature and see why Lindzen's 'iris' hypothesis was flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom