• 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!

Any change at all?

jimbo said:
It appears that you have been given answers but they are not the answers you are looking for. Instead you are loohing for answers like a 10 degree temperature change.

It might be easier if you would give us a list of acceptable answers.
Click to expand...

I can't give an answer to what might concern YOU. I have no idea what that might be.
 
Tpaine said:
I can't give an answer to what might concern YOU. I have no idea what that might be.
Click to expand...

But you have been given answers to your questions. It appears those answers are not the ones you are looking for.
 
jimbo said:
But you have been given answers to your questions. It appears those answers are not the ones you are looking for.
Click to expand...

Only by a couple and after my recent statement. You have not responded with something that would concern you. Making a statement does not mean a question was answered.
 
Tpaine said:
Only by a couple and after my recent statement. You have not responded with something that would concern you. Making a statement does not mean a question was answered.
Click to expand...

I have. Read my posts.

Here's one:

The only way I could be convinced is if events started happening that were outside the normal workings of the earth in the long term.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The time it will take for the changes indicated is decades, centuries, or longer. Do you think things stay static that long? That the buildings will not be bulldozed, abandoned, or something else?
Click to expand...

Decades will affect my children and grandchildren. That is my major concern.
 
Tpaine said:
Decades will affect my children and grandchildren. That is my major concern.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Over decades, my grandparents house became obsolete and was replace. No running water, just a shack. No toilet, an outhouse 20 ft away, and a well the other direction.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Over decades, my grandparents house became obsolete and was replace. No running water, just a shack. No toilet, an outhouse 20 ft away, and a well the other direction.
Click to expand...

I was referring to things like droughts and floods.
 
jimbo said:
I have. Read my posts.

Here's one:

The only way I could be convinced is if events started happening that were outside the normal workings of the earth in the long term.
Click to expand...

Yes but what the heck is "outside the normal workings of the earth in the long term"?
 
Tpaine said:
I was referring to things like droughts and floods.
Click to expand...

I know. My point is that structures are normally replace. They aren't kept forever, except a few rare historical buildings. If the water level predictions come true, then as these structures age, at some time they will be updated with structures to prevail under the conditions.
 
Tpaine said:
Yes but what the heck is "outside the normal workings of the earth in the long term"?
Click to expand...

Well lets see:

In the long term, the temperature of isolated parts or the whole has risen higher than 10 degrees above what is considered normal.

At various times the northern US has been a tropical paradise and at other times covered in ice miles thick.

At other times whole sections of the animal and vegetable kingdom have been wiped out because the climate changed.

At times, the atmosphere makeup has been different than the normal. One not uncommon reason is the occurrence of volcanic activity.

At times the oceans have been larger/smaller than normal.

There are others.

All of these have occurred both before and after the rise of humanoids. All these I would consider inside the normal workings of the earth.
 
Tpaine said:
It’s true I’m not a scientists but I do deal in science. And I don’t believe there is a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists to defraud the public. I can’t understand all the details due to lack of knowledge about climate science but I can see enough that I know it’s based on evidence, not fairy tales. I also know it’s accepted by almost all the experts IN THAT FIELD. No one is questioning that climate change has happened for billions of years. In fact that is how scientists obtain much of their verifications for the science they do today. But there has never been a time in history where mankind has pumped this much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere this fast. That is a huge difference from climate change in the past.
Click to expand...


If you are convinced of the man made global warming fairy tale then how much of a percentage is our current climate man made and how much of it is natural?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If you are convinced of the man made global warming fairy tale then how much of a percentage is our current climate man made and how much of it is natural?
Click to expand...

I accept the evidence. Since around 1970 almost all of it is due to CO2 because the other forcings have been measured and they have been either only slightly increasing, neutral or decreasing.
 
Tpaine said:
I was referring to things like droughts and floods.
Click to expand...

But there is only circumstantial eventide that CO2 might have a part in it. How can you tie it to CO2 with any certainty? The ocean cycles are rather long. Stored energy changes take centuries to circulate. The math had the preciptation increasing, not decreasing.

Droughts and floods... Referring to river way flooding, away from the ocean by chance?

These are opposing moistures. Are you saying we cause both?

We can more easily widen waterways that flood than we can reduce CO2, if it causes a few percent more precipitation. Flooding is primarily the result of land use changes, not CO2. We restrict the natural pathways of water, and reduce the acreages of land that can absorb it.

CO2 is suppose to cause more moisture in the air, not less resulting in drought.

The alarmists blame everything they can on CO2.
 
Tpaine said:
I accept the evidence. Since around 1970 almost all of it is due to CO2 because the other forcings have been measured and they have been either only slightly increasing, neutral or decreasing.
Click to expand...

Please show me where the alarmists have accounted for the approximate 4% swing in atmospheric transparency.

You will be hard pressed to find any that the IPCC et al used that include the varying around of solar energy that strikes the earth due to transparency changes.
 
Lord of Planar said:
CO2 is suppose to cause more moisture in the air, not less resulting in drought.
Click to expand...

Since the atmosphere can't hold unlimited quantities of water vapour, more evaporation most likely also means faster precipitation. Areas which the clouds currently don't visit very often would not necessarily see any increase in rainfall, and may get even less as the clouds which currently reach them rain out before they arrive. Meanwhile areas currently susceptible to heavy rains and flooding would obviously become even moreso, in that scenario.



Lord of Planar said:
Please show me where the alarmists have accounted for the approximate 4% swing in atmospheric transparency.

You will be hard pressed to find any that the IPCC et al used that include the varying around of solar energy that strikes the earth due to transparency changes.
Click to expand...

As I've pointed out to you before, just because ~12-17W/m^2 less solar energy reached the land surface over a period doesn't mean there was that much less energy affecting Earth's climate: Much of it was still absorbed into the atmosphere by the aerosols responsible for the dimming.

You may well find the IPCC's results for aerosol-radiation interactions upsetting to your pet theory that it's mostly China's fault, but to pretend that they don't even exist after I've provided them for you many times previously is simply dishonest.
AR5 WG1 Figure 8.18
Fig8-18.jpg
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
History always begins when one is born.
Click to expand...

I assume during the ice ages and when North America was in another place on the globe both extremes were exceeded, but that is not what is being discussed.
 
backpacker said:
I mean based on their local history since records have been kept i.e. history. As indicated in my post in some parts of the state it was historic and in some places it was not.
Click to expand...
I think there was a very bad flood in the central US in 1927.
My Dad tells the story that my grandfather was going to LSU, and the campus got washed away.
 
longview said:
I think there was a very bad flood in the central US in 1927.
My Dad tells the story that my grandfather was going to LSU, and the campus got washed away.
Click to expand...

That is one way to get out of classes.
 
backpacker said:
That is one way to get out of classes.
Click to expand...
People talk about 1000 year events, yet within the last century are many such events.
These events happen, and likely were happening before people recorded them.
 
Mithrae said:
As I've pointed out to you before, just because ~12-17W/m^2 less solar energy reached the land surface over a period doesn't mean there was that much less energy affecting Earth's climate: Much of it was still absorbed into the atmosphere by the aerosols responsible for the dimming.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. The referred papers used by the IPCC says no such thing on the actual transparency changes. They calculate the aerosol changes, rather than using measured results.

Please read the papers referenced for that section.
 
longview said:
People talk about 1000 year events, yet within the last century are many such events.
These events happen, and likely were happening before people recorded them.
Click to expand...

How does an event that is determined by the fact that statistically it only would happen every 1000 years happen many times in the last century. Engineers design on the basis of statistical events and have records that show how often events happen built into the codes we use. So it would be nice to know if we are missing the boat by a long shot. If you could document all those 1000 year events you are talking about it would certainly help us in the design business. Until then I bet we will not start designing for all those 1000 year events you seem to think happen so regularly.
 
Tpaine said:
How does an event that is determined by the fact that statistically it only would happen every 1000 years happen many times in the last century. Engineers design on the basis of statistical events and have records that show how often events happen built into the codes we use. So it would be nice to know if we are missing the boat by a long shot. If you could document all those 1000 year events you are talking about it would certainly help us in the design business. Until then I bet we will not start designing for all those 1000 year events you seem to think happen so regularly.
Click to expand...

How does someone decide that something is a 1000 year event?
 
Tpaine said:
How does an event that is determined by the fact that statistically it only would happen every 1000 years happen many times in the last century. Engineers design on the basis of statistical events and have records that show how often events happen built into the codes we use. So it would be nice to know if we are missing the boat by a long shot. If you could document all those 1000 year events you are talking about it would certainly help us in the design business. Until then I bet we will not start designing for all those 1000 year events you seem to think happen so regularly.
Click to expand...
You miss the point, the 1000 year event was likely from some news person, and got repeated.
Engineers design say flood control within expected limits, and then make engineering tradeoffs with the budget
to try to double or triple the highest expected.
The problem come in, when new construction changes the hydrology of the watershed.
 
Tpaine said:
I accept the evidence. Since around 1970 almost all of it is due to CO2 because the other forcings have been measured and they have been either only slightly increasing, neutral or decreasing.
Click to expand...

1.Didn't they believe in global cooling in the 1970s?

2.So I take that as a no you can't answer how much of our climate change in man made vs natural?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom