• 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!

Rush vs...uh, Stephen Hawking?

calamity said:
Maybe he knew he wouldn't find any. After all, all of those PHD guys are brainwashed. Only the Highschool dropouts know the TRUTH!
Click to expand...

That is completely untrue. It is only a small handful who have grabbed on to those alarmist climate research funds with a passion. They then have to play the role to keep their money flowing.
 
ModerateRN said:
The problem with the runaway global warming is there have been periods in our plants past were the Earth was 15-20 degrees warmer than it is right now, and had far greater CO2 levels in atmosphere. The Venus analogy was poor; Venus having an atmosphere comprised of 90% CO2 and being far closer to the sun as opposed to our Nitrogen and oxygen based atmosphere.
Click to expand...

And 90something times the atmospheric pressure.
 
calamity said:
Who knows? I certainly don't. But, I do know the earth never had anyone intentionally burn all the sequestered carbon before. At the very least, we are eating up the wiggle-room.

There was a time when the earth had no ice. But, we didn't have an ice free planet and fossil fuel burning at the same time. Same applies to when the earth burped. I think Hawking was pointing to worst-case scenarios. Obviously.
Click to expand...

The entire geology of the planet was different ages past. There was also probabl a tme it was hoter then Mergurey.

The earth has been changing for eons. Generally cooling as the repercussions of the volatile tectonic movements of the past are diminishing. For the last several hundred thousand years, patters were dominated by the sun. I say they still are dictated by the sun, but we do modulate the influence signal a little.
 
longview said:
Actually the results based on the empirical data show an ECS of about 2 C.
With other papers coming in as low as .8 C, but many showing an ECS of about 1.8 C.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
When we look at the idea of how AGW is supposed to work, we see where the high estimates fall apart.
The warming from CO2 forcing, is supposed to be amplified by various climate feedbacks to produce additional warming,
once the long latency equilibrium period has occurred.
Thankfully we have a period of warming in the record (1910 to 1940) where temperatures rose by .2 C and never went back down.
We can use this input, to see how much unaccounted for warming exists.
If we assume the high end of the IPCC range of 4.5 C, the climate amplifier would have to apply a gain factor
of 4.09 to the input warming of 1.1C to arrive at 4.5C.
Since the climate system cannot discriminate the source of the warming, the 1910 to 1940 warming is an input as well.
So .2 C times the gain factor of 4.09 equals .818 C.
This sounds like the 4 C range is plausible, until you subtract out the physics based forcing by CO2 since 1940.
This would be defined by the equation of 1.58 X ln(409/311)= .432 C.
The most gain factor that the observable evidence supports is one that causes .2 C to gain to .386, or about 1.93.
This would be an ECS of about 2.1 C.
But we still have not taken into account the up to .3 C increase from the solar input.
As you can see the climate does appear to have an amplification factor, it just happens to be at the low end of the IPCC range.
Click to expand...

I'll take what was in the NY Mag article over your optimistic estimates. The piece appeared to be well researched and was written without pulling punches, a rare thing these days.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The entire geology of the planet was different ages past. There was also probabl a tme it was hoter then Mergurey.

The earth has been changing for eons. Generally cooling as the repercussions of the volatile tectonic movements of the past are diminishing. For the last several hundred thousand years, patters were dominated by the sun. I say they still are dictated by the sun, but we do modulate the influence signal a little.
Click to expand...

Less the sun than geology and wobble. Land mass moving to block or increase ocean current flow or mountains rising to block or redirect the jet stream are probably the biggest drivers of climate change outside of catastrophic flood basalt or impact events. The sun itself is relatively constant.

Burning all the sequestered carbon is a new variable in this equation. We can look at it two ways though. One: all the great gains made from our discovery and use of fossil fuels comes at no price. Or, two: the Piper patiently waits to be paid. Which do you think is the more reasonable scenario?
 
calamity said:
I'll take what was in the NY Mag article over your optimistic estimates. The piece appeared to be well researched and was written without pulling punches, a rare thing these days.
Click to expand...
Yet you choose to ignore the Otto, et al 2013 Scientific article, written by many of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
 
Fenton said:
Hawkings claims are so ridiculous and idiotic, what choice does anyone have but to side with Rush ?

Thats 250 degrees centigrade he's predicting, not fahrenhiet.

Hawking must believe that the average individual has the IQ of a toaster. Why else would he make such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim like that ?
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't. With what I see the "Hawking claims" are these days, he might be nothing more than a prop any more. Who is the wizard behind his voice these days?
 
longview said:
You are free to be a pessimistic as you like!
I have worked on the bleeding edge of R&D for many years, and think
humans will always rise to whatever challenge confronts them.
One of the main reasons I am skeptical of AGW, is they have not identified the correct problem.
We do not have a CO2 problem, we have an energy problem.
Click to expand...

LOL...

I have worked "cutting edge" rapid research and development with automation equipment. Shed my fair share of blood!
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

I have worked "cutting edge" rapid research and development with automation equipment. Shed my fair share of blood!
Click to expand...

I once wrote a memo to a corporate vice president, about how development Engineers would benefit from field experience.
Six months later, I was on the back deck of a seismic ship, polishing the end of a fiber cable in heavy seas.
One of my first experiences in being careful what I recommend!
 
calamity said:
Less the sun than geology and wobble.
Click to expand...
I'll agree to both. As for wobble, I believe the three effects combined is what you mean. Eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. I think when the insolation of the earth due to proximity and angle are right, that the solar state must also be right fr the tripping point.

calamity said:
Land mass moving to block or increase ocean current flow or mountains rising to block or redirect the jet stream are probably the biggest drivers of climate change outside of catastrophic flood basalt or impact events. The sun itself is relatively constant.
Click to expand...
I agree they will have an effect, but how significant? If the circulation of an ocean changes from 400 years to 800 years, it just changes response times of equalization for example. Jet streams are far higher than any mountain. Tectonic changes are very slow compared to millions of years ago and longer.

calamity said:
Burning all the sequestered carbon is a new variable in this equation. We can look at it two ways though. One: all the great gains made from our discovery and use of fossil fuels comes at no price. Or, two: the Piper patiently waits to be paid. Which do you think is the more reasonable scenario?
Click to expand...
I believe there are millions of shades of grey. I'm sorry you live in a black and white world.

Yo know, color TV was invented about 65 years ago.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'll agree to both. As for wobble, I believe the three effects combined is what you mean. Eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. I think when the insolation of the earth due to proximity and angle are right, that the solar state must also be right fr the tripping point.


I agree they will have an effect, but how significant? If the circulation of an ocean changes from 400 years to 800 years, it just changes response times of equalization for example. Jet streams are far higher than any mountain. Tectonic changes are very slow compared to millions of years ago and longer.
Click to expand...
No doubt the jet stream is higher. But, the Himalaya certainly redirects and/or breaks it up. Warm air rising and cooling as it climbs the wall, monsoon dumping rain in the foothills, that sort of thing effects the jet stream. I'm not sure of all the details. Just the basics.

Mount Everest winds- The Jet Stream


I believe there are millions of shades of grey. I'm sorry you live in a black and white world.

Yo know, color TV was invented about 65 years ago.
Click to expand...
Nothing is for free. Black and White or not, that's an axiom.
 
More evidence of an active, ongoing "doomsday."

Sixth extinction: The era of 'biological annihilation' - CNN.com

"It's the most comprehensive study of this sort to date that I'm aware of," said Anthony Barnosky, executive director of the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve at Stanford University, who was not involved in the study. Its value, Barnosky said, is that it makes visible a phenomenon typically unseen by scientists and the public: that even populations of relatively common species are crashing.

"We've got this stuff going on that we can't really see because we're not constantly counting numbers of individuals," he said. "But when you realize that we've wiped out 50% of the Earth's wildlife in the last 40 years, it doesn't take complicated math to figure out that, if we keep cutting by half every 40 years, pretty soon there's going to be nothing left."
Click to expand...

So, perhaps Hawking's hyperbole about a lifeless, 250 Degree planet Earth was not that far off from where we are headed after all.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't believe Hawking's ever said such scientific nonsense. This is confirmation to me that he is being used as a prop, and some stories have said for a few years now.
Click to expand...
There was a Doonesbury comic strip in the 70's where Mao's translator Honey Huan, is the only
one who can understand (or not) what Mao is saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom