• 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!

How much is too much

Tpaine said:
In the short time I've been here I seen several say the accept AGW but think it's not going to be a problem. The IPCC says 1.5 above pre-industrial times is bad and 2 is really bad. I was wondering for those that think it's not a problem, is there some increase that you think it would become a problem? I apologize if this has already been beat to death.
Click to expand...

I believe it's real and a problem, but I know there is nothing we can do about it without making life worse for billions of people. So, it's a choice, Live with the effects of AGW or cut energy use and slowly starve out a few billion people.
 
I find it funny that a guy who posts every frickin day for years uses a sentence like 'I believe that the IPCC has revised its ECS estimate downward to 2 degrees'.

I *believe* the IPCC is clear, and I certainly believe he's been schooled on this multiple times!
 
Quaestio said:
No it isn't.
Click to expand...
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.
Click to expand...
You are free to interpret the Charter of the IPCC as you see fit, but if they Found CO2 had minimal impact,
there would be need for an IPCC.


No, you're projecting, although you mix very little actual science with a huge amount of uninformed/misinformed amateur opinion.

That's just the no-feedback Planck physics response.

That's not subjective, it's based on observations, paleo evidence, modelling, and physics.
Click to expand...
When one peels away all the layers, the concepts of AGW is stated in the IPCC's
Key concepts in Climate Science document
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.
Click to expand...
There is the 1.2°C direct response I stated, and it lists the amplified feedbacks as a belief,
a belief with an enormous uncertainty range of 3 °C.
The feedbacks are based on assumptions and models, mostly on the assumption that the warming observed from 1978 to 1998
would continue at that rate, it did not!

longview said:
The IPCC originally targeted 2 C, as the level to stay below to avoid the really catastrophic impacts of AGW.
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036 - Scientific American Why not quote the IPCC then?

You have been corrected on this false claim several times, but keep on making it. No, the literature shows the best estimate for ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) still centres around about 3C despite a couple of outlying papers. I even provided a google scholar search for climate sensitivity papers since 2013 that you clearly ignored.
Click to expand...
There are many papers that find lower ECS sensitivity, Curry, Lindzen, Otto, ect.
And you know the AR5 report did not include a Best Estimate for ECS.
I'll post it again although you'll probably ignore it again:
Click to expand...
I have read much of the IPCC report.
Since all the models start with a set of assumptions, and most of those assumptions vary from model to model,
There may not be any relevance between the models, and so no statistical significance as to how many models said what.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

You are free to interpret the Charter of the IPCC as you see fit, but if they Found CO2 had minimal impact,
there would be need for an IPCC.



When one peels away all the layers, the concepts of AGW is stated in the IPCC's
Key concepts in Climate Science document
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

There is the 1.2°C direct response I stated, and it lists the amplified feedbacks as a belief,
a belief with an enormous uncertainty range of 3 °C.
The feedbacks are based on assumptions and models, mostly on the assumption that the warming observed from 1978 to 1998
would continue at that rate, it did not!


I have read much of the IPCC report.
Since all the models start with a set of assumptions, and most of those assumptions vary from model to model,
There may not be any relevance between the models, and so no statistical significance as to how many models said what.
Click to expand...


You've shown you can't even read something really basic like the GISS FAQ, or RSS FAQ, let alone the IPCC WG1 report or the literature, so you just make **** up, play with numbers you don't understand, or repeat rubbish from climate truther blogs.
 
Quaestio said:
You've shown you can't even read something really basic like the GISS FAQ, or RSS FAQ, let alone the IPCC WG1 report or the literature, so you just make **** up or repeat rubbish from climate truther blogs.
Click to expand...
I don't usually read or link to blogs, but try to keep to published papers.
It still comes down to CO2 will cause some warming (1.2°C), and they think that
warming will be amplified through feedbacks to cause additional warming.
They can model it all they want, but if the models do not match the observed data, the models are in error.
The longer the time frame the lower the warming per decade looks.
So from 1970 to 2014, the GISS has a delta of .73 °C over 4.4 Decades or .166 °C per decade.
Various combinations of years causes the per decade rate to move from low of under .1 °C per decade
to greater than .3 °C per decade, What does this say?
For one thing it says the signal to noise ratio in the GISS data set is all over the place.
It also says any numbers out past the second digit are meaningless.
 
Baralis said:
My concern is for the wildlife which are the innocent victims to mankind's destructive nature, AGW just being a small part of this, mankind its self will adapt and survive as we have other major global changes in our history.

My biggest gripe is with many of the people who advocate global measures to curtail mans contribution to GW. While I greatly support a persons effort to minimize their impact on the earth in all aspects what I generally see is people who will only make token efforts themselves and proclaim their great achievements to saving the planet while advocating greater changes or sacrifices be mandated onto others. My view is until you are willing to make the sacrifices and put in the effort yourself then you really have no right to expect anything of anyone else. In short, for the 99% of people I have met, **** or get off the pot.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true.

That house Al Gore had... Didn't it use something like 30 times the average persons electricity. Didn't he live there while advocating we reduce our footprint?

How can any sane person take such a hypocrite serious?
 
longview said:
I don't usually read or link to blogs, but try to keep to published papers.
It still comes down to CO2 will cause some warming (1.2°C), and they think that
warming will be amplified through feedbacks to cause additional warming.
They can model it all they want, but if the models do not match the observed data, the models are in error.
The longer the time frame the lower the warming per decade looks.
So from 1970 to 2014, the GISS has a delta of .73 °C over 4.4 Decades or .166 °C per decade.
Various combinations of years causes the per decade rate to move from low of under .1 °C per decade
to greater than .3 °C per decade, What does this say?
For one thing it says the signal to noise ratio in the GISS data set is all over the place.
It also says any numbers out past the second digit are meaningless.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sure you 'keep to published papers'... a couple that have been in misrepresented on climate truther blogs. You ignore everything else.

{{{snore}}} same old same old
 
Quaestio said:
Yeah, sure you 'keep to published papers'... a couple that have been in misrepresented on climate truther blogs. You ignore everything else.

{{{snore}}} same old same old
Click to expand...
And you just keep ignoring the data that disagrees with your dogma.
I have to go where the data leads, and from what I have seen the data shows
the ECS of CO2 to be roughly 1.8 °C.
People can speculate about how the warming will accelerate, but so far that is not supported in the data,
unless they include the El Nino events which are known to not be CO2 related.
(El Nino have been observed since the 1500's)
 
longview said:
And you just keep ignoring the data that disagrees with your dogma.
I have to go where the data leads, and from what I have seen the data shows
the ECS of CO2 to be roughly 1.8 °C.
People can speculate about how the warming will accelerate, but so far that is not supported in the data,
unless they include the El Nino events which are known to not be CO2 related.
(El Nino have been observed since the 1500's)
Click to expand...
You go where your ideology leads. You won't even do a search of the literature, either because you are too lazy, or perhaps for fear that you might actually 'see' 'data' that refutes your ideology.

Your posts sound like prayers....repeated over and over again, but with no basis in science.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Your posts sound like prayers....repeated over and over again.
Click to expand...

So what proof do you have it's more than what he says?

There are negative feedback to increased greenhouse gasses too, you know...

If you only include the assumed positive feedback, the numbers are alarming.
 
Quaestio said:
Your posts sound like prayers....repeated over and over again, but with no basis in science.
Click to expand...
It is good that you have faith in your dogma, because that is about all that supports it.
When even the abused data of the GISS shows a major shift in the temperature trend, it must be difficult for you to deny it.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
yet you still try!
 
longview said:
It is good that you have faith in your dogma, because that is about all that supports it.
When even the abused data of the GISS shows a major shift in the temperature trend, it must be difficult for you to deny it.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
yet you still try!
Click to expand...

{{{snore}}} Got any science to go with your climate trutherisms and dishonesty?
 
Quaestio said:
{{{snore}}} Got any science to go with your climate trutherisms and dishonesty?
Click to expand...
I just have the data, which shows there are more variables than are accounted for in the models.
It is warming, just not in the way they predicted. The warming has both a seasonal and a diurnal asymmetry,
that was not accounted for in the models.
Despite the best efforts of the GISS, they have been unable to contort the data sufficiently to move the warming
into the alarmist range.
Long term (1970 to 2014) the warming is in the .166 °C per decade range, with fairly clear signs of deceleration.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
This is not as close as it seems to the modeled prediction of .21 °C per decade,
and many times less than the .565 °C per decade needed to Mann's unbelievable prediction
in Scientific American.
At the .166 °C per decade rate we are on track for an ECS of about 1.8 °C, about 2070.
But that is predicated on if we keep using fossil fuels for transport, and I think that likelihood is even less plausible,
than the concept of catastrophic AGW.
 
HEY SKEPTICS!!

Look, the question is reasonable, what would it take for you to consider AGW a real treat???

If you can't answer that then you are as none-scientific in your thinking on this subject as the alarmists are in their cult. You have to be able to answer this question. Not do the same old quoting of various papers back and forth!!
 
Quaestio said:
{{{snore}}} Got any science to go with your climate trutherisms and dishonesty?
Click to expand...
longview said:
I just have the data, which shows there are more variables than are accounted for in the models.
It is warming, just not in the way they predicted. The warming has both a seasonal and a diurnal asymmetry,
that was not accounted for in the models.
Despite the best efforts of the GISS, they have been unable to contort the data sufficiently to move the warming
into the alarmist range.
Long term (1970 to 2014) the warming is in the .166 °C per decade range, with fairly clear signs of deceleration.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
This is not as close as it seems to the modeled prediction of .21 °C per decade,
and many times less than the .565 °C per decade needed to Mann's unbelievable prediction
in Scientific American.
At the .166 °C per decade rate we are on track for an ECS of about 1.8 °C, about 2070.
But that is predicated on if we keep using fossil fuels for transport, and I think that likelihood is even less plausible,
than the concept of catastrophic AGW.
Click to expand...

So your answer is: No, you have no science to go with your climate trutherisms, dishonesty and pseudoscience ramblings. Glad you made that abundantly clear.
 
Quaestio said:
So your answer is: No, you have no science to go with your climate trutherisms, dishonesty and pseudoscience ramblings. Glad you made that abundantly clear.
Click to expand...
Data is simply data, nothing more, nothing less.
Unfortunately for your argument the data supports a lower ECS.
Somewhere between Curry and many of the lead authors of the IPCC,(1.64 -2 °C)
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.co..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Both papers are mainly based on observational data, the main advantage of models based on observational data,
is that they are inclusive of all the variables, even the ones we do not know about!
 
longview said:
I just have the data, which shows there are more variables than are accounted for in the models.
It is warming, just not in the way they predicted. The warming has both a seasonal and a diurnal asymmetry,
that was not accounted for in the models.
Despite the best efforts of the GISS, they have been unable to contort the data sufficiently to move the warming
into the alarmist range.
Long term (1970 to 2014) the warming is in the .166 °C per decade range, with fairly clear signs of deceleration.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
This is not as close as it seems to the modeled prediction of .21 °C per decade,
and many times less than the .565 °C per decade needed to Mann's unbelievable prediction
in Scientific American.
At the .166 °C per decade rate we are on track for an ECS of about 1.8 °C, about 2070.
But that is predicated on if we keep using fossil fuels for transport, and I think that likelihood is even less plausible,
than the concept of catastrophic AGW.
Click to expand...


And yet the scientists who study this didn't notice.

Funny that.
 
Threegoofs said:
And yet the scientists who study this didn't notice.

Funny that.
Click to expand...
Of course they did, that is why the GISS has been pointing out this or that month
is the hottest on record. It is because there is no real AGW news to report.
 
Steve Case said:
Oh, I just noticed, you're the author of this thread, what was it again, oh yes:


Not to make too much of a fine point about it, why don't you take a flying leap?
Click to expand...

I did not post this as a contentious statement. There seem to be two groups that actually accept the AGW science but then one group doesn’t think there will be much warming while the other group thinks there will be a fair amount but the warming will be beneficial. I have found that a debate gets off track if there is no consensus on exactly what is being debated. I was interested in what the thinking was at this site so when I made a response it would apply to who I was debating. No offense was intended.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given that this is reasonable question can you answer my reasonable question;

How long does that temperature data have to come in at lower than the lowest case predictions of the IPCC for you to think that AGW is not a problem? Another 10 years? 20 years? 60 years?
Click to expand...

Tim I am certainly not a climate scientists so it’s difficult for me to follow a lot of the debate if it gets too technical. I see graphs from the skeptics that show it’s not following the models and I see graphs from the other side that shows the temperature is following the models at least within the uncertainty factors. I don’t know how to determine an ‘ensemble mean’ of the models but I have found where I can track the digital data from NASA on a monthly basis so that is what I’ve decided to use for my personal interpretation of the science. And the graph below follows the data I download from the NASA site. From this graph it appears to me it is following the models fairly close. Or at least close enough to be an indication of the future rise in temperature.

1975 - 2016 data.JPG
 
longview said:
There are many factors at play, some may be within Human control.
The IPCC has a job, that job is to find evidence of Human caused Climate change,
If none exists they will be out of a job, so they find it everywhere they look.
Click to expand...

The IPCC was formed because scientists DID find evidence of Human caused global warming.

Part of the issue with AGW is that they intermix actual science with quite a bit of subjective opinion.
For the Science part, Doubling the CO2 level from 280 to 560 ppm, will likely cause warming of about 1.2 C.
Click to expand...

The IPCC says the likely rise is 3 degrees C. Do you have evidence it will be 1.2 C? For every 1 degree rise in temperature there will be 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere which is a strong greenhouse gas. That has been shown to raise the temperature another 1.2 to 1.8 additional degrees. There are other positive and negative feedbacks but overall the feedbacks are positive which made the ice ages possible.

One of the assumptions is that humans are actually capable of doubling the CO2 level.
We are roughly 43 % of the way towards doubling the CO2 level, but the easy oil is mostly gone.
The remaining oil will be much more expensive and difficult to extract.
Click to expand...

The 'easy' oil may be gone but the profitable oil is not. Right now around $50 is when drilling starts to pick back up.

The subjective portion of the IPCC position is that the 1.2 C from the extra CO2,
Will be amplified through feedbacks to produce somewhere between minor and exceptional additional warming. (1.5 to 4.5 C)
The IPCC originally targeted 2 C, as the level to stay below to avoid the really catastrophic impacts of AGW.
Click to expand...

That is still the number they are saying. But now 1.5 C is looking dangerously high.

On the other side of the equation, the warmer earth with more CO2 is causing the plant hardiness zones to expand,
and the planet is greening up.
Click to expand...

That is true but it appears that will be more than offset by droughts, floods, and sea rise that will cause large amounts of displacements in the population. The 3 year drought in Syria caused rural populations to migrate to the urban areas looking for food. ISIS took advantage of this situation to increase their ranks.

Keep in mind the same math that says burning one pound of fuels makes 3 pounds of CO2, works the other way.
It takes 3 pounds of CO2 to make one pound of biomass.
We have enough energy, it is just is not in costs effective portable format.
Those evil oil companies, after corporate profits will save us all.
With surplus power from wind and solar, a Modern refinery can make carbon neutral fuel from air and water,
it just will cost the equivalent of about $90 a barrel to do so.
As the current surplus declines (and it will) the price will climb, and we will likely start to see carbon neutral fuel at the pumps.
It is really not important for AGW, but solves any problems with AGW as a byproduct of solving our real problem of energy storage.
Click to expand...

But by the time that happens how much CO2 will we have pumped into the atmosphere and how long will it be before the temperature stops rising. It won't stop on a dime and what will cause it to decrease at that point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom