• 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!

Warm Periods Have Happened Before

Lord of Planar said:
Wow...

I don't know what to say, except I have a hard time believing you are a scientist now.

It is significant if man's effect is only 5%.

I suspect you don't realize how significant a very small longitudinal imbalance can effect twisted pairs running together.
Click to expand...

Well, then perhaps you should bone-up on your command of the English language.
 
Media_Truth said:
Well, then perhaps you should bone-up on your command of the English language.
Click to expand...

from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant



Definition of significant

1
: having meaning; especially : suggestive a significant glance

2
a : having or likely to have influence or effect : important a significant piece of legislation; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount a significant number of layoffs producing significant profitsb : probably caused by something other than mere chance statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease
​

----------------------------

from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/


6. Significant

Another word that sets scientists' teeth on edge is "significant."

"That's a huge weasel word. Does it mean statistically significant, or does it mean important?" said Michael O'Brien, the dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri.

In statistics, something is significant if a difference is unlikely to be due to random chance. But that may not translate into a meaningful difference, in, say, headache symptoms or IQ.
​
 
Lord of Planar said:
from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant



Definition of significant

1
: having meaning; especially : suggestive a significant glance

2
a : having or likely to have influence or effect : important a significant piece of legislation; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount a significant number of layoffs producing significant profitsb : probably caused by something other than mere chance statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease
​

----------------------------

from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/


6. Significant

Another word that sets scientists' teeth on edge is "significant."

"That's a huge weasel word. Does it mean statistically significant, or does it mean important?" said Michael O'Brien, the dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri.

In statistics, something is significant if a difference is unlikely to be due to random chance. But that may not translate into a meaningful difference, in, say, headache symptoms or IQ.
​
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point. AGW is a significant problem, according to climatologists. Happy?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have never once mention organizations. I have specifically asked for peer reviewed papers with the 97% number. Two of the papers out there include polls.

I have specifically asked for links to such papers so we can all see and discuss it.

Let me be more clear, since you are intentionally avoiding a proper response.

Something with a DOI number.
Click to expand...

There are several papers/studies that mention anywhere from 91-98%, including the Cook study, University of Illinois study, and the National Academy of Sciences
 
Geoist said:
There are several papers/studies that mention anywhere from 91-98%, including the Cook study, University of Illinois study, and the National Academy of Sciences
Click to expand...

Yes....

Contributing!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then your understanding of what a conspiracy is, is very wrong.
Click to expand...

No, yours is. You want to imagine that your position is not CT, but it is. Your positions and arguments on this subject are exactly like a Truther. It's laughable.

It's so funny when CT blog pushers tell an MSc in International Environmental Science that the educated person is avoiding science and can't understand. If they could see themselves from the outside, they'd be ashamed. It's pathetic.

Enjoy your CT blog, it makes you look ridiculous.
 
Geoist said:
There are several papers/studies that mention anywhere from 91-98%, including the Cook study, University of Illinois study, and the National Academy of Sciences
Click to expand...

Since you mentioned the Cook Study it might be worth actually looking at the study, and see what they say.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...
So the 97% is only among those abstract expressing an position,
and excludes the 66.4% of abstracts that did not express a position.
One of the few polls out there, actually came up with a high number, but because of the two primary questions asked.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ts-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally
risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Click to expand...
90% said risen
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
Click to expand...
82% answered yes
Note: they did not ask if the Scientist thought the warming would be dangerous, of the level of warming they expected.
 
ecofarm said:
No, yours is. You want to imagine that your position is not CT, but it is. Your positions and arguments on this subject are exactly like a Truther. It's laughable.

It's so funny when CT blog pushers tell an MSc in International Environmental Science that the educated person is avoiding science and can't understand. If they could see themselves from the outside, they'd be ashamed. It's pathetic.

Enjoy your CT blog, it makes you look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think it's sad when someone like you claims the science is settled.
 
longview said:
Since you mentioned the Cook Study it might be worth actually looking at the study, and see what they say.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...
So the 97% is only among those abstract expressing an position,
and excludes the 66.4% of abstracts that did not express a position.
One of the few polls out there, actually came up with a high number, but because of the two primary questions asked.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ts-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally
risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Click to expand...
90% said risen
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
Click to expand...
82% answered yes
Note: they did not ask if the Scientist thought the warming would be dangerous, of the level of warming they expected.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that the warmers and alarmists blatantly lie or misunderstand the facts behind all these studies.

In all fairness, when the Doran study narrowed it down to the Climate Scientists, they got the 97% number. But still, that was for any "significant" warming, even if the scientists only thought it was 10%, maybe even 5% of the warming we see. I'm sure the numbers would have been much less if they asked "most" instead of "significant."
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Forget all the blather about unprecedented warming. It has happened often before. Chinese research takes up the issue.

Proxies
Warm periods in the 20th century are not unprecedented during the last 2,000 years

Public Release: 8-Aug-2017 From Eurekalert Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences IMAGE: 2,000-year temperature reconstruction in China. view more Credit: Yang Liu & Jingyun Zheng A great deal of evidence relating to ancient climate variation is preserved in proxy data such as tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, corals and historical…

. . . A great deal of evidence relating to ancient climate variation is preserved in proxy data such as tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, corals and historical documents, and these sources carry great significance in evaluating the 20th century warming in the context of the last two millennia.
Prof. Quansheng Ge and his group from the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, collected a large number of proxies and reconstructed a 2000-year temperature series in China with a 10-year resolution, enabling them to quantitatively reveal the characteristics of temperature change in China over a common era.
“We found four warm epochs,” says Prof. Ge, “which were AD 1 to AD 200, AD 550 to AD 760, AD 950 to AD 1300, and the 20th century. Cold periods occurred between AD 210 and AD 350, AD 420 and AD 530, AD 780 and AD 940, and AD 1320 and AD 1900. The temperature amplitude between the warmest and coldest decades was 1.3°C”.
Prof. Ge’s team found that the most rapid warming in China occurred over AD 1870-2000, at a rate of 0.56 ± 0.42°C (100 yr)?1; however, temperatures recorded in the 20th century may not be unprecedented in the last 2000 years, as reconstruction showed records for the period from 981 to 1100, and again from 1201 to 1270, were comparable to those of the present warm period, but with an uncertainty of ±0.28°C to ±0.42°C at the 95% confidence interval. Since 1000 CE–the period covering the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age, and the present warm period–temperature variations over China have typically been in phase with those of the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. . . .
Click to expand...

Jack, the earth's CLIMATE was stable, secure and pristine until man started increasing a minor trace gas a few extra hundred PARTS PER MILLION now the whole thing is out of wack and unstable! How dare you question the profitable (politically and economically)one trace gas most politically viable for exploit that was chosen as the cause celeb for this movement! How DARE YOU QUESTION CONSENSUS!!! Someone send this man to a re-edumakation kamp ASAP
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think it's sad when someone like you claims the science is settled.
Click to expand...

Not settled - but 95% certainty. If you were told you had a 95% chance of death, without a surgery, I'll bet you'd get the surgery.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

UNPRECEDENTED RATE! And I'm sure we'll now hear, is some odd shape or form, that you know more than NASA!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think it's sad when someone like you claims the science is settled.
Click to expand...

The science is settled. Climate change is real and human activity contributes to the rate of change.

Keep pushing CT blogs and pretending that's an education.
 
Media_Truth said:
Not settled - but 95% certainty. If you were told you had a 95% chance of death, without a surgery, I'll bet you'd get the surgery.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

UNPRECEDENTED RATE! And I'm sure we'll now hear, is some odd shape or form, that you know more than NASA!
Click to expand...

Of course he knows more than NASA, and NOAA and every scientist. He has a magazine subscription and reads a CT blog. He got the real-deal education.
 
Media_Truth said:
Not settled - but 95% certainty. If you were told you had a 95% chance of death, without a surgery, I'll bet you'd get the surgery.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

UNPRECEDENTED RATE! And I'm sure we'll now hear, is some odd shape or form, that you know more than NASA!
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.

In medicine, predictions are based on thousands or millions of observations with defined results.

We only have one earth, and the models are wrong 95% of the time.
 
ecofarm said:
The science is settled. Climate change is real and human activity contributes to the rate of change.

Keep pushing CT blogs and pretending that's an education.
Click to expand...


Yes, climate change is real.

Yes, we contribute.

What's your problem?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You still don't get it.

In medicine, predictions are based on thousands or millions of observations with defined results.

We only have one earth, and the models are wrong 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

So this is the latest "I know more than NASA" comment.
 
Media_Truth said:
So this is the latest "I know more than NASA" comment.
Click to expand...

If you want to frame it that way, that's your ignorance. I do know more than the three bloggers given a NASA web address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom