• 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!

Are Climate Models Overstating Warming?

Buzz said:
Actually, it fits right in with your denialist misconceptions and misrepresentation of the facts.



Wow!!! there is literally so much wrong with this statement that it would take me days to address it all. But I will start with the fact that you are claiming that over 95% of the precipitation that falls on Portland ends up in its rivers and streams. This is, in reality, a number you pulled directly out of your butt! And the most obvious proof of this is your estimation of how much water is absorbed into the ground(1.47" per year). This is sheer stupidity beyond belief! This amount of water absorbing into the ground and available for Portland's plant-life is significantly less than the rainfall that most deserts of the southwest receive in a year. If this is true than most of the trees and plant life in Portland would not be able to survive without significant amounts of irrigation. Which brings up the issue of irrigation, of which you keep ignoring despite the fact that I have pointed out your denial of irrigation numerous times. Fact of the matter is that if this was all the water that was absorbed by the ground in Portland then Cactus would have a hard time surviving there much less the trees and the other plant-life. Obviously, you are wrong!
Click to expand...

For the hard of thinking;

The land where the plants are, is soil, not concrete. That still absorbs as much as normal.

The concrete areas where the plants are not has changed thus the climate locally has changed.

Urbanisation does increase the amount of rainwater running away into the drains and then the sea without having the chance to evaporate or transpire.

Whilst irriagtion may well have an effect it is not doing so in the wet areas where they obviously don't irrigate.

The draining of wetlands will have had a far greater effect on transpiration rates in most cases than the increase in irrigation. Obviously there will be local exceptions.
 
bubbabgone said:
Watts Up With Curry.

I got a kick out of this line ...
Figure 4 in Cowtan et al. shows that the use of SAT/SST (“blended”) model output data doesn’t actually close the gap by much: the majority of the reconciliation happens by using “updated forcings”, i.e. peeking at
the answer post-2000.​
iow, ya gotta do whatchu gotta do. That kind of approach to climate science seems to have caught on with the big boys.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like to point out to the CAGW crowd that that method of doing "science" means that we will know with 95% certainty what the warming will be in 2100 no later than 2101. :lamo
 
Buzz said:
So... you ran out of time last Thursday and that caused you to ignore most of my posts from Saturday? That makes no sense what so ever.
Click to expand...
I see you are showing your ignorance again.

I responded to a post, had to stop on the computer. When I log in and select a thread from my threads subscribed to, I use the "view first unread." This gives the the posts in a thread that are new since I last viewed the thread.

Buzz said:
This debate is about Portland and the reports cover pretty much all of Portland's city limits.
Click to expand...
No, this subthread is about the loss of evapotranspiration. I used my home as an example.

Buzz said:
Last time you complained about these reports you claimed they were for well over 2,000 square miles. Now it is too small an area. Which is it Lord... is it too big or too small?
Click to expand...
Liar.

Go back and show me.

Buzz said:
Bull****!! You are lazy and have proven yourself to be over and over again. That's why you love to demand other people prove their arguments but can almost never back up yours. You're always too busy or unwilling to spend time doing anything. Just like this debate. All you have done is provide the annual rainfall of Portland and some numbers based on variables that you pulled out of your butt. At least I am willing to do some looking to find some facts to back up my arguments.
Click to expand...
Once again, you avoid anything relevant. This is not about me. It's about sciences you fail to grasp.

Buzz said:
I did once but you blew it off. And while this is a rough estimate, I would say the average effective land coverage of Portland is about 50%.
Click to expand...
What you linked had no relevance to accurate estimates. I even read a linked paper that said something like it was very inaccurate.

Buzz said:
Oh... so you're going to go with the weasel words defense?

:lamo
Click to expand...
I see you never read papers. that is a very long standing complaint of mine, how the pundits you like take such words and take them as fact. I'm not trying to on any specific number down. I'm showing you it has significant effect. Are you too daft to comprehend that when I say *IF*... That *IF* has very defined parameters.

Grow up. Words have meaning.

I tore your arguments with any relevance to the topic down, and you are not even addressing them. You are making me the topic.

I guess you admit defeat.
 
Buzz said:
Wow!! Lord of Planar actually acknowledges irrigation!! OMFG!!
Click to expand...

LOL...

You really need to stop thinking you outsmart anyone. I have repeatedly acknowledged the effects of irrigation. I have never denied them.

Why do you do this? Do you think it's funny to be deceptive in such ways? Are you too ignorant to realize how many people see your foolishness, and treat you as a fool because of your ways?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I see you are showing your ignorance again.

I responded to a post, had to stop on the computer. When I log in and select a thread from my threads subscribed to, I use the "view first unread." This gives the the posts in a thread that are new since I last viewed the thread.
Click to expand...

Your still not making any sense. The "first unread" would have been the first post you admittedly ignored.

Lord of Planar said:
No, this subthread is about the loss of evapotranspiration. I used my home as an example.
Click to expand...

Yes... and you used false information and incorrect assumptions about that example to back up your unproven theory that the loss of evapotranspiration is some kind of huge factor that scientists are ignoring.

Lord of Planar said:
Liar.

Go back and show me.
Click to expand...

Damn Lord... you accuse me of lying and then demand that I prove you wrong. How about showing us all that you are not lazy and back up your own BS for once.

Lord of Planar said:
Once again, you avoid anything relevant. This is not about me. It's about sciences you fail to grasp.
Click to expand...

Quit misrepresenting the science and I wouldn't have to make this about you.

Lord of Planar said:
What you linked had no relevance to accurate estimates. I even read a linked paper that said something like it was very inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Really!?! You found a paper that said these reports are inaccurate and didn't link to it?? Prove it... if you're not too lazy.

Lord of Planar said:
I see you never read papers. that is a very long standing complaint of mine, how the pundits you like take such words and take them as fact. I'm not trying to on any specific number down. I'm showing you it has significant effect. Are you too daft to comprehend that when I say *IF*... That *IF* has very defined parameters.
Click to expand...

Oh... I see. You admit that you complain about pundits using weasel words but it is O.K. for you to do it. What a hypocrite.

Lord of Planar said:
Grow up. Words have meaning.

I tore your arguments with any relevance to the topic down, and you are not even addressing them. You are making me the topic.

I guess you admit defeat.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like you're the one admitting defeat.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You really need to stop thinking you outsmart anyone. I have repeatedly acknowledged the effects of irrigation. I have never denied them.
Click to expand...

No, you just ignore them. Over and over again.

Lord of Planar said:
Why do you do this? Do you think it's funny to be deceptive in such ways? Are you too ignorant to realize how many people see your foolishness, and treat you as a fool because of your ways?
Click to expand...

Could you please lay off the endless stream of childish and immature attacks and insults. I know it sucks to have one of your favorite pet theories shot down but insulting me constantly isn't going to change the facts.
 
Related model nonsense:


[h=1]BBC Climate Explainers Recycle Yesterday’s “The Day After Tomorrow”[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Yesterday’s “The Day After Tomorrow” climate explainer’s excuse for cold winters is back – research suggests that the North Atlantic current is weaker than anytime for the last 1000 years Climate change dials down Atlantic Ocean heating system By Victoria Gill Science correspondent, BBC News 11 April 2018 A significant…
Continue reading →
 
Buzz said:
Quit misrepresenting the science and I wouldn't have to make this about you.
Click to expand...
You haven't shown anything I misrepresented.

Buzz said:
Really!?! You found a paper that said these reports are inaccurate and didn't link to it?? Prove it... if you're not too lazy.
Click to expand...
It was in the paper you linked. Don't you follow sources papers use?

Buzz said:
Lord of Planar said:
I see you never read papers. that is a very long standing complaint of mine, how the pundits you like take such words and take them as fact. I'm not trying to on any specific number down. I'm showing you it has significant effect. Are you too daft to comprehend that when I say *IF*... That *IF* has very defined parameters.
Click to expand...
Oh... I see. You admit that you complain about pundits using weasel words but it is O.K. for you to do it. What a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Why is it so hard to understand what I said?

Please read my words carefully. I am complaining about the pundits taking the authors taking ambiguous (weasel) words and explicitly stating facts not in the papers. This propaganda happens regularly.

Again... I am not specifying a number, hence my choice of words. Authors of papers do the same think an a regular basis. It's obvious you don't read enough actual papers to see that I am doing the same thing that the likes of James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, etc. do on a regular basis.
 
Buzz said:
Could you please lay off the endless stream of childish and immature attacks and insults. I know it sucks to have one of your favorite pet theories shot down but insulting me constantly isn't going to change the facts.
Click to expand...

Then start showing you actually have a concept of the level of science the climate sciences require, instead of your 6th grade understanding of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom