• 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]

You should be embarrassed... Your argument does not even make logical sense.

Why? Because there are 30 years worth of models and they are wrong more often than they are right... No matter how you slice it; total trend, actual temperatures, change in temperatures, etc...

y6u3aqyh.jpg
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Profit has not always brought out the best. Cheaper at a high price has been more dominate. So, a new technology that might be expensive for a long while versus a cheap technology will almost always win the profit battle.

Scientists do have papers and publications detailing their work. Most of those are not free often hard to produce here. But doing a search you can find that they exist. Just can't copy and paste them for free.
Thankfully fuels are not clothing accessories, or cars, where people place
artificial subjective values on them.
Also we are not asking the oil refineries to make a moral decision, it will strictly be the numbers.
When it becomes less expensive (for the refinery) to make their own feedstock, rather than pay
to get it out of the ground, they will switch. The change will not occur all at once, as they pay
different prices for their supplies, based on it's source.

I have read quite a few of the technical papers related to AGW, I originally thought
the AGW crowd was saying the additional forcing was an unknown artifact of CO2,
Which was very unlikely.
Peeling away the layers, it became clear that the additional forcing was a collection
of predicted open loop feedback, that they believed would happen.
None of these feedbacks had actually been quantified, but they could happen.
From Baede et al,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. 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.
FYI, this paper is where the IPCC gets it's range, and is cited in IPCC 5.
When we look at the instrument evidence for these feedback that
amplify CO2's response, they are small to nonexistent.
there is no extra energy hiding in the deep ocean, or elsewhere,
the energy was not delayed in leaving earth, because the predicted
additional feedback failed to materialize, as a major factor.
We will likely exceed Baede's low range number, but the mid to high range
does not look probable at this point.
Like the curve shows, we have seen about 51% of the direct response of
doubling CO2. Temperatures have increased by .8 °C.
According to the IPCC's key cited source,(and accepted Physics),
that 51% should equal .6 °C of warming. (51% of 1.2°C).
If the additional feedbacks exists, they must be within the remaining .2°C.
no alarm, no panic, warming and sea levels increases,
like humans has been seeing for over 2000 years.
 
Cute picture, what is it based on?

Well, if you had a nominal understanding of the issue, you'd know it's connecting the IPCC predictions with actual observations in different datasets and displaying the margins of error for each.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Thankfully fuels are not clothing accessories, or cars, where people place
artificial subjective values on them.
Also we are not asking the oil refineries to make a moral decision, it will strictly be the numbers.
When it becomes less expensive (for the refinery) to make their own feedstock, rather than pay
to get it out of the ground, they will switch. The change will not occur all at once, as they pay
different prices for their supplies, based on it's source.

I have read quite a few of the technical papers related to AGW, I originally thought
the AGW crowd was saying the additional forcing was an unknown artifact of CO2,
Which was very unlikely.
Peeling away the layers, it became clear that the additional forcing was a collection
of predicted open loop feedback, that they believed would happen.
None of these feedbacks had actually been quantified, but they could happen.
From Baede et al,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

FYI, this paper is where the IPCC gets it's range, and is cited in IPCC 5.
When we look at the instrument evidence for these feedback that
amplify CO2's response, they are small to nonexistent.
there is no extra energy hiding in the deep ocean, or elsewhere,
the energy was not delayed in leaving earth, because the predicted
additional feedback failed to materialize, as a major factor.
We will likely exceed Baede's low range number, but the mid to high range
does not look probable at this point.
Like the curve shows, we have seen about 51% of the direct response of
doubling CO2. Temperatures have increased by .8 °C.
According to the IPCC's key cited source,(and accepted Physics),
that 51% should equal .6 °C of warming. (51% of 1.2°C).
If the additional feedbacks exists, they must be within the remaining .2°C.
no alarm, no panic, warming and sea levels increases,
like humans has been seeing for over 2000 years.

You keep presenting this paper as something separate from the IPCC. It's very odd. It's almost like you don't know this....but I've seen you cite this source a dozen times and you never refer to it as the IPCC report.

This paper, which you refer to as Baede, is chapter 1 of the IPCC WG1.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=38

And they have quantified the feedbacks later in the report.

jehy2yvy.jpg
 
Well, if you had a nominal understanding of the issue, you'd know it's connecting the IPCC predictions with actual observations in different datasets and displaying the margins of error for each.

No, I wanted you to show the data source...
 
Interestingly enough, it wasnt me who said it adds nothing new. I also see you reference nothing that I disagree with in the paper. But then again,you seem to rarely know what you are talking about.

YOu agree that it adds nothing new, you have already said as much. You disagree with the information it DOES provide, however, because it discusses that the models on which AGW is based are critically flawed as evidenced by their inability to match the real climate record.

Are you saying that you accept that the models are indeed wrong as the paper states, a fact that the reviewers state is common knowledge? Because to do that you have to accept that the forcings used in these models are also wrong.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

You keep presenting this paper as something separate from the IPCC. It's very odd. It's almost like you don't know this....but I've seen you cite this source a dozen times and you never refer to it as the IPCC report.

This paper, which you refer to as Baede, is chapter 1 of the IPCC WG1.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

And they have quantified the feedbacks later in the report.

jehy2yvy.jpg
Well let's look at your chart.
According to Baede et al, the direct response for a doubling of CO2 would
be an energy imbalance of 4 Wm−2. which would cause a temperature increase of 1.2°C.
So Your chart says they expect an additional energy imbalance of 1.6 Wm−2.
Listed as "total net anthropogenic"
1.2°C/4 Wm−2= .3 °C per Wm-2,
.3 °C per Wm-2 * 1.6 Wm−2= .48 °C
Wow, Scary, So if we add together the accepted response of CO2 (1.2°C),
with the predicted "total net anthropogenic" ( .48 °C)
We get a wopping 1.68 °C, by the time we double CO2.
Since we are about 50% through the effects of doubling CO2,
and the observed record shows a .8 increase, we are spot on
for hitting that 1.68 °C number, (within the margin of error).
The problem is the 1.68 °C over 200 years is not alarming.
 
That's funny... I had a feeling they played with the numbers to say something the data does not support.

Well, its functionally the same representation the IPCC gives in their own summary.

I dont have the graphic handy here - but I dont think I'll bother since you'll dismiss it out of hand anyway in another stunning display of ignorance and hand waving.
 
YOu agree that it adds nothing new, you have already said as much. You disagree with the information it DOES provide, however, because it discusses that the models on which AGW is based are critically flawed as evidenced by their inability to match the real climate record.

Are you saying that you accept that the models are indeed wrong as the paper states, a fact that the reviewers state is common knowledge? Because to do that you have to accept that the forcings used in these models are also wrong.


I dont know what thread you've been reading, but its not this one.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Well let's look at your chart.
According to Baede et al, the direct response for a doubling of CO2 would
be an energy imbalance of 4 Wm−2. which would cause a temperature increase of 1.2°C.
So Your chart says they expect an additional energy imbalance of 1.6 Wm−2.
Listed as "total net anthropogenic"
1.2°C/4 Wm−2= .3 °C per Wm-2,
.3 °C per Wm-2 * 1.6 Wm−2= .48 °C
Wow, Scary, So if we add together the accepted response of CO2 (1.2°C),
with the predicted "total net anthropogenic" ( .48 °C)
We get a wopping 1.68 °C, by the time we double CO2.
Since we are about 50% through the effects of doubling CO2,
and the observed record shows a .8 increase, we are spot on
for hitting that 1.68 °C number, (within the margin of error).
The problem is the 1.68 °C over 200 years is not alarming.

You mean Baede, et al (which would be referred to as Chapter 1 of WG1 of the IPCC AR5, in non-bizarro land) differs from the IPCC later on in the WG1 report?

So the IPCC disagrees with the IPCC, which both disagree with the conclusion of the IPCC.

That would make little sense. But what would make MUCH more sense is that your interpretation of both Chapter 1 and the above graphic is totally wrong.

I'm guessing the latter.

And before you whine.... I'm not going to put the work into figuring out your errors....its akin to having a third grader come up to me when I'm working on my car and telling me the flux capacitor setting is miscalculated to 1.574 instead of 2.105 and I need to adjust the velocity indicator switch. The best response is not to get into a discussion about the setting on the capacitor.
 
I dont know what thread you've been reading, but its not this one.

Since the paper was rejected for presenting nothing new, and what the paper presented was that the IPCC models and the climate record are producing clearly different results, and the reviewers quite clearly argued that the divergent models and climate record are expected, then support for rejecting the paper on those grounds is, by default, support for the paper's conclusions, however pedestrian they may have been.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Thankfully fuels are not clothing accessories, or cars, where people place
artificial subjective values on them.
Also we are not asking the oil refineries to make a moral decision, it will strictly be the numbers.
When it becomes less expensive (for the refinery) to make their own feedstock, rather than pay
to get it out of the ground, they will switch. The change will not occur all at once, as they pay
different prices for their supplies, based on it's source.

I have read quite a few of the technical papers related to AGW, I originally thought
the AGW crowd was saying the additional forcing was an unknown artifact of CO2,
Which was very unlikely.
Peeling away the layers, it became clear that the additional forcing was a collection
of predicted open loop feedback, that they believed would happen.
None of these feedbacks had actually been quantified, but they could happen.
From Baede et al,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

FYI, this paper is where the IPCC gets it's range, and is cited in IPCC 5.
When we look at the instrument evidence for these feedback that
amplify CO2's response, they are small to nonexistent.
there is no extra energy hiding in the deep ocean, or elsewhere,
the energy was not delayed in leaving earth, because the predicted
additional feedback failed to materialize, as a major factor.
We will likely exceed Baede's low range number, but the mid to high range
does not look probable at this point.
Like the curve shows, we have seen about 51% of the direct response of
doubling CO2. Temperatures have increased by .8 °C.
According to the IPCC's key cited source,(and accepted Physics),
that 51% should equal .6 °C of warming. (51% of 1.2°C).
If the additional feedbacks exists, they must be within the remaining .2°C.
no alarm, no panic, warming and sea levels increases,
like humans has been seeing for over 2000 years.

Again, I don't know what we don't know. Scientist are saying something a little different.
 
WRONG.

View attachment 67166764

*sigh*. Why is it that every time there's something that there's something that conservatives don't like, it's compared to Islam or terrorists or Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Castro or the Holocaust or slavery?

Could it be...satan????



Yes, it is...to those of us who don't pretend that 90% of the world's scientists aren't all part of some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy....

LOL, so why are they covering up every bit of evidence that suggests anything to the contrary?

You're so painted by your politics that you NEED this to be true. You're so invested in it that it's unfathomable to ever admit you're wrong, much like these scientists.

I mean, it's just got to be somebody's fault right? That's in your DNA has a liberal.
 
Since the paper was rejected for presenting nothing new, and what the paper presented was that the IPCC models and the climate record are producing clearly different results, and the reviewers quite clearly argued that the divergent models and climate record are expected, then support for rejecting the paper on those grounds is, by default, support for the paper's conclusions, however pedestrian they may have been.

Like I said, I dont know what you're talking to yourself about.

The paper I cited was Anderegg in PNAS 2010. Nothing to do with models or rejection.
 
LOL, so why are they covering up every bit of evidence that suggests anything to the contrary?

You're so painted by your politics that you NEED this to be true. You're so invested in it that it's unfathomable to ever admit you're wrong, much like these scientists.

I mean, it's just got to be somebody's fault right? That's in your DNA has a liberal.

Benjamin Franklin once said that the only way three people will keep a secret is if two of them are dead. But you're requiring that tens of thousands of scientists are keeping this "secret", and so are millions of liberals.

Time to come in from riding those conspiracy-theory fences, guy.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

You mean Baede, et al (which would be referred to as Chapter 1 of WG1 of the IPCC AR5, in non-bizarro land) differs from the IPCC later on in the WG1 report?

So the IPCC disagrees with the IPCC, which both disagree with the conclusion of the IPCC.

That would make little sense. But what would make MUCH more sense is that your interpretation of both Chapter 1 and the above graphic is totally wrong.
You do understand that the enormous range of the predictions made by the IPCC,
are large enough that it would almost be impossible for them to disagree.
Baede, et al, and the chart you showed Do not disagree, they both predict
warming beyond the direct response of CO2, from radiative forcing.
Baede, et al says the additional will be between .3 and 3.3 °C,
And your chart has a average value of 1.6 Wm−2, which is .48 °C.
Practically anyone can see that .48 °C, falls into the range of .3 to 3.3 °C.

Also the instrument record is coming in at the low end of all of their predictions.
 
Benjamin Franklin once said that the only way three people will keep a secret is if two of them are dead. But you're requiring that tens of thousands of scientists are keeping this "secret", and so are millions of liberals.

Time to come in from riding those conspiracy-theory fences, guy.

There is no secret. The media just won't report it.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

You do understand that the enormous range of the predictions made by the IPCC,
are large enough that it would almost be impossible for them to disagree.
Baede, et al, and the chart you showed Do not disagree, they both predict
warming beyond the direct response of CO2, from radiative forcing.
Baede, et al says the additional will be between .3 and 3.3 °C,
And your chart has a average value of 1.6 Wm−2, which is .48 °C.
Practically anyone can see that .48 °C, falls into the range of .3 to 3.3 °C.

Also the instrument record is coming in at the low end of all of their predictions.

I still find it odd you reference Baede like it's not part of the IPCC.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

I still find it odd you reference Baede like it's not part of the IPCC.
You implied that different sections of the IPCC disagreed with each other,
So the IPCC disagrees with the IPCC, which both disagree with the conclusion of the IPCC.
I was pointing out that the range of the prediction was inclusive of just about any possibility.
And the data still shows, the calls for alarm are unwarranted.
 
Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

I was pointing out that the range of the prediction was inclusive of just about any possibility.
And the data still shows, the calls for alarm are unwarranted.

Except, of course, for temps staying flat or going down...
 
Back
Top Bottom