• 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!

Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
That's a mistake. Numbers always need interpretation, they don't speak for themselves. Any good statistician, any good researcher knows this.
Click to expand...
Well first where is my data incorrect?
Secondly there seems to be a misconception, that the Science of AGW is insanely complicated, and down in the fine points it is,
But at a higher level of abstraction, they are making very straight forward predictions.
The IPCC has predicted that when CO2 levels reach 560 ppm, global average temperatures will be between 1.5 and 4.5 C higher.
These numbers are inclusive of all possible variables known and unknown.
One of the known variables, is the accepted direct response of CO2, and accounts for about .6 C of the observed .8 C.
This leaves only .2 C for all other variables, including natural warming.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:
Well first where is my data incorrect?
Secondly there seems to be a misconception, that the Science of AGW is insanely complicated, and down in the fine points it is,
But at a higher level of abstraction, they are making very straight forward predictions.
The IPCC has predicted that when CO2 levels reach 560 ppm, global average temperatures will be between 1.5 and 4.5 C higher.
These numbers are inclusive of all possible variables known and unknown.
One of the known variables, is the accepted direct response of CO2, and accounts for about .6 C of the observed .8 C.
This leaves only .2 C for all other variables, including natural warming.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's correct. You didn't link any thing for me to examine. And I have no reason to accept random numbers.

And predictions being off a little don't prove much. Again, they don't speak for themselves. It is unlikely that you are showing anything scientists haven't seen and, they appear to in no way be moved by it. You should ask why?
 
longview said:
You do not comprehend well do you? My statement was inclusive of the temperature going up.
I go wth the data.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And you think if it happens it will overturn physics as we know it (because you can't comprehend that you might be...wrong).

But maybe I'm not interpreting your comment correctly.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Threegoofs said:
Rate of change. You're gonna love the concept, if you can wrap your head around it.

Here's a taste:

tejudehu.jpg
Click to expand...

I looked at that phony graph and my temperature fell below 98.6°.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah. And you think if it happens it will overturn physics as we know it (because you can't comprehend that you might be...wrong).

But maybe I'm not interpreting your comment correctly.
Click to expand...
No Goofs, I think it would change our understanding of Physics If Science could establish a cause and effect
relationship between the increase in CO2 and the predicted additional forcing.
So far that has not happened, and may not because it is difficult to validate if the additional forcing exists.
I am a skeptic, I could be wrong, no big deal, this is not a religious conviction to me, as it is to you.
 
longview said:
No Goofs, I think it would change our understanding of Physics If Science could establish a cause and effect
relationship between the increase in CO2 and the predicted additional forcing.
So far that has not happened, and may not because it is difficult to validate if the additional forcing exists.
I am a skeptic, I could be wrong, no big deal, this is not a religious conviction to me, as it is to you.
Click to expand...

That sounds solid.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure it's correct. You didn't link any thing for me to examine. And I have no reason to accept random numbers.

And predictions being off a little don't prove much. Again, they don't speak for themselves. It is unlikely that you are showing anything scientists haven't seen and, they appear to in no way be moved by it. You should ask why?
Click to expand...

1880_3.jpg
Sorry, I have been arguing this in other threads with links.
The observed data is from the GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I use the J-D column, and normalize the zero at 1880, since that is the starting point for the IPCC's predictions.
The IPCC predictions are from the IPCC,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-
century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is
likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C
Click to expand...
The time of the doubling is purely guesswork, but is placed between 2050 and 2100,
Mann's April Scientific American article has the doubling about 2077, His graph look a lot like mine, except
he shows the predicted limits from current temps, I was attempting to show the error trend over extended time.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/s...he-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036_large.jpg
Mann appears to be doubling down on his prediction, by saying,
If the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise 2 degrees Celsius by 2036
Click to expand...
Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036 - Scientific American
Think about that for a second, we have warmed .8 C in 133 years, but Dr Mann is saying 22 years from now we will raise an additional 1.2 C.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:
View attachment 67166712
Sorry, I have been arguing this in other threads with links.
The observed data is from the GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I use the J-D column, and normalize the zero at 1880, since that is the starting point for the IPCC's predictions.
The IPCC predictions are from the IPCC,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The time of the doubling is purely guesswork, but is placed between 2050 and 2100,
Mann's April Scientific American article has the doubling about 2077, His graph look a lot like mine, except
he shows the predicted limits from current temps, I was attempting to show the error trend over extended time.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/s...he-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036_large.jpg
Mann appears to be doubling down on his prediction, by saying,

Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036 - Scientific American
Think about that for a second, we have warmed .8 C in 133 years, but Dr Mann is saying 22 years from now we will raise an additional 1.2 C.
Click to expand...

So, those who gave these numbers interpret them as meaning global warming is real and that man plays a role. Why should I doubt them and not you?
 
joG said:
Why do you use such short term graphs?
Click to expand...

Didn't know a century was short term, but I often just use the first source that pops up. It serves the purpose here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Didn't know a century was short term, but I often just use the first source that pops up. It serves the purpose here.
Click to expand...

If we were looking at stock prices and possibly at interest rates going back to 1890 or so would be fine. In geological time 100 or even 10.000 years is an insufficient data row. Here you need to talk many millions of years to be able to see patterns.
 
joG said:
If we were looking at stock prices and possibly at interest rates going back to 1890 or so would be fine. In geological time 100 or even 10.000 years is an insufficient data row. Here you need to talk many millions of years to be able to see patterns.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's entirely true. However, even measuring it that long you get this:

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

image.jpg

Global Warming : Feature Articles
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure that's entirely true. However, even measuring it that long you get this:

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

View attachment 67166717

Global Warming : Feature Articles
Click to expand...

That is a fine graph you use there, but it does not show the development relative to other periods in geological time. I find this important to get a feeling for uniqueness or comparability. This graph only shows the atmospheric gas concentrations, but indicates, what I mean.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
And I told you, scientist don't vote or buy off politicians. So, the hope us to discourage. You guys too often confuse politics and science. Politics us what keeps it from being treated appropriately.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you should address that to the libs pushing the ponzi scheme agenda. As long as you and others tie money to mitigation, you will lose the argument.
 
joG said:
That is a fine graph you use there, but it does not show the development relative to other periods in geological time. I find this important to get a feeling for uniqueness or comparability. This graph only shows the atmospheric gas concentrations, but indicates, what I mean.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
Click to expand...

I expected that you'd read the article. Remember, it's not the graphs, but the explanation. They don't speak for themselves.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:
Then maybe you should address that to the libs pushing the ponzi scheme agenda. As long as you and others tie money to mitigation, you will lose the argument.
Click to expand...

It's not about "libs" or conservatives. Put I've watch you guys fight every single option. Cap and trade, just as we saw in health care, used to be a republican idea. Every time democrats adopt a republican idea, you guys take that ponzu scheme tack. It's tiresome.

Here the discussion us about the science and the science alone. Address the science.
 
Boo Radley said:
I expected that you'd read the article. Remember, it's not the graphs, but the explanation. They don't speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Actually I had only looked at your graph. Sorry about that. Having read the link, I seem to be missing the proof or reasons why they think temperature will climb faster than in other periods.
 
joG said:
Actually I had only looked at your graph. Sorry about that. Having read the link, I seem to be missing the proof or reasons why they think temperature will climb faster than in other periods.
Click to expand...

Not will climb (though they it will continue), but has climbed faster.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

The political rhetoric will only get more desperate as they claw for any evidence HUMAN INDUCED global warming is occurring.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Sure, I believe there is global warming going on.

But I think handling it should be either left to the private sector to handle or the government ONLY if they receive a direct mandate from the people (through a separate referendum on this particular subject - NOT from a general election).

Otherwise, I think the government should stay out if it as they will probably just make it even worse.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
It's not about "libs" or conservatives. Put I've watch you guys fight every single option. Cap and trade, just as we saw in health care, used to be a republican idea. Every time democrats adopt a republican idea, you guys take that ponzu scheme tack. It's tiresome.

Here the discussion us about the science and the science alone. Address the science.
Click to expand...

I'll address what I please thank you.

Explain what carbon credits are in relation to the failed Chicago carbon exchange is and what that has to do with science, if you can without being totally dishonest.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:
I'll address what I please thank you.

Explain what carbon credits are in relation to the failed Chicago carbon exchange is and what that has to do with science, if you can without being totally dishonest.
Click to expand...

Not sure why I should as it has nothing to do with anything I'm arguing. I'll happily address anything that I'm claiming.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:
So, those who gave these numbers interpret them as meaning global warming is real and that man plays a role. Why should I doubt them and not you?
Click to expand...
Man does play a role.
Some portion of the increase in CO2 is related to Human activity,
and there is a direct response (warming ) to increasing CO2.
For the purpose of this discussion, We could blame all the warming in the last
133 years on human activity,(unlikely)it still would not be worthy of the
catastrophic predictions.
The additional open loop feedback, that is predicted to cause the additional warming,
so far appears to be a minor player at best, not a game changer.
The fact that the range of their predictions is so large, tells you something
of their own confidence in their predictions.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:
Man does play a role.
Some portion of the increase in CO2 is related to Human activity,
and there is a direct response (warming ) to increasing CO2.
For the purpose of this discussion, We could blame all the warming in the last
133 years on human activity,(unlikely)it still would not be worthy of the
catastrophic predictions.
The additional open loop feedback, that is predicted to cause the additional warming,
so far appears to be a minor player at best, not a game changer.
The fact that the range of their predictions is so large, tells you something
of their own confidence in their predictions.
Click to expand...

only 3 of their models actually were close to the observed data. so the question is why are not all the model recaliberated to those 3.
more so why are they always chooses the biggest doom and gloom models for their reports when there is little data to back them up.

the IPCC is nothing more than a political body doing hack science work in order to push a political agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom