• 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?

The bottom line is that staples like corn and other grains have increased post 2006 by enough to move quite a few more people
into a food compromised position. A person who could afford 1 cup of cornmeal per person per day before,
can now only afford 2/3 of a cup of cornmeal per person per day.
 
longview said:
The bottom line is that staples like corn and other grains have increased post 2006 by enough to move quite a few more people
into a food compromised position. A person who could afford 1 cup of cornmeal per person per day before,
can now only afford 2/3 of a cup of cornmeal per person per day.
Click to expand...

Yes and even those who can still afford the cup per day, those above the bottom billion people, cannot afford to spend on anything else like education or medicines. This is trapping people in poverty utterly unnecessarily.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes and even those who can still afford the cup per day, those above the bottom billion people, cannot afford to spend on anything else like education or medicines. This is trapping people in poverty utterly unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
Right, we in the west have a poor understanding of the struggles to survive the poor make.
Places like Haiti where mud cakes are actually something made and sold.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/29/food.internationalaidanddevelopment
 
Nickyjo said:
So what’s the point here? Get an international team of scientists to investigate the issue and report back with recommendations. Meantime, let’s take steps to reduce emissions just in case, and rejoice if we can once again celebrate coal.
Click to expand...

Who gets to pick the "team of international scientists" and would it be mattering if they were "international socialists" or international capitalists?"




What if they were to find that "global warming" was caused by farming?

Just to be safe shouldn't we suspend farming until we are told that its once again safe to rejoice in eating and keeping from freezing?
 
Last edited:
SirGareth said:
Who gets to pick the "team of international scientists" and would it be mattering if they were "international socialists" or international capitalists?"




What if they were to find that "global warming" was caused by farming?

Just to be safe shouldn't we suspend farming until we are told that its once again safe to rejoice in eating and keeping from freezing?
Click to expand...


Or it could be caused by breathing. So exhaling could be prohibited. You are right on track with your suggestion.

But it doesn't matter what scientists you ask to do the research. They could be the top people from Trump University, but if they confirm what seems to be the dominant opinion, then many conservatives won't believe them. Worse than damage from climate is government regulation in their eyes. They'll just keep entering snowballs into the Congressional Record.
 
Nickyjo said:
Or it could be caused by breathing. So exhaling could be prohibited. You are right on track with your suggestion.

But it doesn't matter what scientists you ask to do the research. They could be the top people from Trump University, but if they confirm what seems to be the dominant opinion, then many conservatives won't believe them. Worse than damage from climate is government regulation in their eyes. They'll just keep entering snowballs into the Congressional Record.
Click to expand...

Is it OK with you if we go with the consensus and still find nothing to worry about at all?

I mean wht do you think is the most scary part of a slightly warmer world?
 
Tim the plumber said:

Is it OK with you if we go with the consensus and still find nothing to worry about at all?

I mean wht do you think is the most scary part of a slightly warmer world?
Click to expand...

Rising seas, disappearing islands, agriculture failures, ruining Mar-a-Lago, etc. In general, I go with what John McCain said a few years ago, that if the theory is right, we should do something. If it's wrong, much of what is proposed is good public policy anyway. In general, we should follow the best evidence of what is happening and how it might affect us, aware that there may be alarmists exaggerating the threat on the left, seeing confirmation in every massive fire and storm, and anti-regulation-no-matter-what people on the right, taking their snowballs into Congress.

I remember skeptics about tobacco, acid rain, the ozone layer, and what causes smog. I presume some concerns about these were overblown, but we did what seemed necessary, things got better, and we survived.
 
Nickyjo said:
Rising seas, disappearing islands, agriculture failures, ruining Mar-a-Lago, etc. In general, I go with what John McCain said a few years ago, that if the theory is right, we should do something. If it's wrong, much of what is proposed is good public policy anyway. In general, we should follow the best evidence of what is happening and how it might affect us, aware that there may be alarmists exaggerating the threat on the left, seeing confirmation in every massive fire and storm, and anti-regulation-no-matter-what people on the right, taking their snowballs into Congress.

I remember skeptics about tobacco, acid rain, the ozone layer, and what causes smog. I presume some concerns about these were overblown, but we did what seemed necessary, things got better, and we survived.
Click to expand...

OK, in order to get to grip with this can we try to limit the conversation to 1 single aspect of slightly warmer world and I wil explain why that is not a significant problem. Please keep it to a single aspect and I define significant as costing any local council in the world, that has traffic lights, more to sort out than it's traffic lights budget.
 
Tim the plumber said:

OK, in order to get to grip with this can we try to limit the conversation to 1 single aspect of slightly warmer world and I wil explain why that is not a significant problem. Please keep it to a single aspect and I define significant as costing any local council in the world, that has traffic lights, more to sort out than it's traffic lights budget.
Click to expand...

I actually don't know what the most scary part is. If I lived in Africa and saw crop failure due to drought, I might worry about that. If I had ocean front property in Florida, about that. We could limit the conversation to the local city council in Florida deciding if it needs to spend more dough on barriers to ocean water as/if the tides rise more than normal.

I can't tell you which is the most likely problem to continue or get worse. What do the scientists suggest is the most likely significant negative consequence?
 
Nickyjo said:
I actually don't know what the most scary part is. If I lived in Africa and saw crop failure due to drought, I might worry about that. If I had ocean front property in Florida, about that. We could limit the conversation to the local city council in Florida deciding if it needs to spend more dough on barriers to ocean water as/if the tides rise more than normal.

I can't tell you which is the most likely problem to continue or get worse. What do the scientists suggest is the most likely significant negative consequence?
Click to expand...

Ok, it is not going to be possible to restrict you to one issue at a time.

1, Africa was much more fertile when it was warmer during the Bronze age. The Holocene Optimal saw the Sahara being a land of woods and grassland. Lakes larger than England were there. The increase in CO2 has already caused a very large increase in the zones which can be cultivated productively.

2, If you had ocean front property in Florida you would have a property worth lots of money. Building a sea defence along the beach would be relatoively cheap. Although if you build a house on a beach then it will always be waiting for the next storm to take it away. That is nothing to do with sea level just how beaches work.

3, Scientists don't tell us what the most scary/bad thing is likely to be. Politicians and journalists hype up anything they can.

4, Hyped up people come along and tell those who have look at it they we all should panic and destroy the world's economy.

5, My guess is that 20 million people per year die due to the use of food as fuel. 35% of US grain is diverted into biofuel. The same sort of proportion of EU food. This is vastly increasing the world food prices. Almost half the world lives on less than $2.50 a day. How many more people do you want to kill to avoid the problem you don't actually know what it is?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Ok, it is not going to be possible to restrict you to one issue at a time.

1, Africa was much more fertile when it was warmer during the Bronze age. The Holocene Optimal saw the Sahara being a land of woods and grassland. Lakes larger than England were there. The increase in CO2 has already caused a very large increase in the zones which can be cultivated productively.

2, If you had ocean front property in Florida you would have a property worth lots of money. Building a sea defence along the beach would be relatoively cheap. Although if you build a house on a beach then it will always be waiting for the next storm to take it away. That is nothing to do with sea level just how beaches work.

3, Scientists don't tell us what the most scary/bad thing is likely to be. Politicians and journalists hype up anything they can.

4, Hyped up people come along and tell those who have look at it they we all should panic and destroy the world's economy.

5, My guess is that 20 million people per year die due to the use of food as fuel. 35% of US grain is diverted into biofuel. The same sort of proportion of EU food. This is vastly increasing the world food prices. Almost half the world lives on less than $2.50 a day. How many more people do you want to kill to avoid the problem you don't actually know what it is?
Click to expand...

Let's jump to point five: 20 million dead per year. Three holocausts. Conservatives, who hold all the levers of power, can do something (see my post elsewhere). Get our UN ambassador to highlight this. What ever you think of Trump (don't get me started), he seems to have compassion for suffering people and doesn't cotton to climate change theories. Have him highlight this carnage in a speech or two.

My understanding, based on studies from 30 or more years ago by Food First, is that there is plenty of arable land to cover whatever we are losing in searches for alternative fuels. It is often badly distributed and used for export crops rather than local food needs in the Third World. Try to change that, and one is called a communist. As I noted in another post, the ball is in conservatives court. Commission studies, have hearings, etc. If the science surrounding climate change is faulty, replace it with better science. The Koch brothers would presumably fund studies that would tell us what the problem "really is."
 
Nickyjo said:
Let's jump to point five: 20 million dead per year. Three holocausts. Conservatives, who hold all the levers of power, can do something (see my post elsewhere). Get our UN ambassador to highlight this. What ever you think of Trump (don't get me started), he seems to have compassion for suffering people and doesn't cotton to climate change theories. Have him highlight this carnage in a speech or two.

My understanding, based on studies from 30 or more years ago by Food First, is that there is plenty of arable land to cover whatever we are losing in searches for alternative fuels. It is often badly distributed and used for export crops rather than local food needs in the Third World. Try to change that, and one is called a communist. As I noted in another post, the ball is in conservatives court. Commission studies, have hearings, etc. If the science surrounding climate change is faulty, replace it with better science. The Koch brothers would presumably fund studies that would tell us what the problem "really is."
Click to expand...

I am trying to do all that.

The science says that there is no significant trouble to come from a small warming.
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Study: ‘Chaos Seeding’ impairs the interpretation of Numerical Weather Models[/h]This paper was published in late 2017, and we didn’t notice it then. Today thanks to a tip from Dr. Willie Soon, via Willis Eschenbach, we notice it now. The paper is open access. See PDF link below. Seeding Chaos: The Dire Consequences of Numerical Noise in NWP Perturbation Experiments Abstract Studying changes made to…

1 day ago February 27, 2018 in Climate Models.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a long way of saying that the flapping of a butterflies wing today can cause a storm to happen or not happen in 3 weeks time?
 
Aerosols / Uncategorized
[h=1]Study: Interactions between smoke and clouds have unexpected cooling effect[/h]Atomspheric physicists have found that the way wildfire smoke from Africa interacts with clouds over the Atlantic Ocean results in a net cooling effect, which is contrary to previous understanding and has implications for global climate models. CREDIT NASA/Kirk Knobelspiesse Clouds play a prominent role in moderating Earth’s climate, but their role is still poorly…
 
[h=2]Mystery solved: Rain means satellite and surface temps are different. Climate models didn’t predict this…[/h]
A funny thing happens when you line up satellite and surface temperatures over Australia. A lot of the time they are very close, but some years the surface records from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) are cooler by a full half a degree than the UAH satellite readings. Before anyone yells “adjustments”, this appears to be a real difference of instruments, but solving this mystery turns up a rather major flaw in climate models.
Bill Kininmonth wondered if those cooler-BOM years were also wetter years when more rain fell. So Tom Quirk got the rainfall data and discovered that rainfall in Australia has a large effect on the temperatures recorded by the sensors five feet off the ground. This is what Bill Johnston has shown at individual stations. Damp soil around the Stevenson screens takes more heat to evaporate and keeps maximums lower. In this new work Quirk has looked at the effect right across the country and the years when the satellite estimates diverge from the ground thermometers are indeed the wetter years. Furthermore, it can take up to six months to dry out the ground after a major wet period and for the cooling effect to end.
In Australia rainfall controls the temperature, which is the opposite of what the models predict, but things are different in the US.
In Australia maximum rainfall occurs in the summer but it is highly variable, whereas in the US, while the summer rain is heavier, it’s the winter precipitation where the big variations occur. This seasonal pattern makes a big difference. Both the Australian pattern and the US pattern appear in other places around the world, but the models only have the one scenario. It appears the modelers figured out the situation in New Jersey and programmed it in for the rest of the world, but whole zones of the world are behaving quite differently.
Models predict that temperature affects rainfall — but in Australia the rainfall affects the temperature. No wonder these models are skillless at predicting temperature and on rainfall — even worse.
As far as I know this is new and original research. Tom Quirk has run it past a few people, including John Christy of UAH who notes that this has been seen elsewhere. Let’s keep up with the peer review…
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Mystery solved: Rain means satellite and surface temps are different. Climate models didn’t predict this…[/h]
A funny thing happens when you line up satellite and surface temperatures over Australia. A lot of the time they are very close, but some years the surface records from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) are cooler by a full half a degree than the UAH satellite readings. Before anyone yells “adjustments”, this appears to be a real difference of instruments, but solving this mystery turns up a rather major flaw in climate models.
Bill Kininmonth wondered if those cooler-BOM years were also wetter years when more rain fell. So Tom Quirk got the rainfall data and discovered that rainfall in Australia has a large effect on the temperatures recorded by the sensors five feet off the ground. This is what Bill Johnston has shown at individual stations. Damp soil around the Stevenson screens takes more heat to evaporate and keeps maximums lower. In this new work Quirk has looked at the effect right across the country and the years when the satellite estimates diverge from the ground thermometers are indeed the wetter years. Furthermore, it can take up to six months to dry out the ground after a major wet period and for the cooling effect to end.
In Australia rainfall controls the temperature, which is the opposite of what the models predict, but things are different in the US.
In Australia maximum rainfall occurs in the summer but it is highly variable, whereas in the US, while the summer rain is heavier, it’s the winter precipitation where the big variations occur. This seasonal pattern makes a big difference. Both the Australian pattern and the US pattern appear in other places around the world, but the models only have the one scenario. It appears the modelers figured out the situation in New Jersey and programmed it in for the rest of the world, but whole zones of the world are behaving quite differently.
Models predict that temperature affects rainfall — but in Australia the rainfall affects the temperature. No wonder these models are skillless at predicting temperature and on rainfall — even worse.
As far as I know this is new and original research. Tom Quirk has run it past a few people, including John Christy of UAH who notes that this has been seen elsewhere. Let’s keep up with the peer review…
Click to expand...

It's called evapotranspiration. One of the things we have for the climate sciences that is underrated.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's called evapotranspiration. One of the things we have for the climate sciences that is underrated.
Click to expand...

I learned this first hand when I used to work in Irrigation systems.

Even in 100 degree F days, it was MUCH cooler in parks where I keep moist, I could feel the surface being much cooler when laying down than standing up.

Since the humidity is low in the Columbia Basin, I could soak my work shirt with water, wring out the excess and use that as a cooler for the next hour.

Evaporation in any form is a cooling mechanism.
 
Sunsettommy said:
I learned this first hand when I used to work in Irrigation systems.

Even in 100 degree F days, it was MUCH cooler in parks where I keep moist, I could feel the surface being much cooler when laying down than standing up.

Since the humidity is low in the Columbia Basin, I could soak my work shirt with water, wring out the excess and use that as a cooler for the next hour.

Evaporation in any form is a cooling mechanism.
Click to expand...

They just don't believe it, because their prophets of AGW seldom speak of it. When they do, it is only claiming cooler areas due to irrigation. They never speak of increased warming over the decades as asphalt, concrete, and building replace natural vegetation, and forcing the rainwater into storm sewers instead of it soaking in the ground for later cooling.

How many temperature monitoring stations have never been influenced by such effect...
 
EPA
[h=1]Futurism: Demanding Climate Data is Evil[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to Futurism author Lou Del Bello, demanding the data used in climate studies is evil because it leaves climate scientists open to having their work challenged. Scott Pruitt’s Latest EPA Gambit Is As Clever As It Is Evil Lou Del Bello The more information, the better, right? Except when…
 
Climate models are burdened decades’ worth of neglected uncertainty. It’s time to treat uncertainty as a primary scientific challenge. [link]
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate models are burdened decades’ worth of neglected uncertainty. It’s time to treat uncertainty as a primary scientific challenge. [link]
Click to expand...

It is way past time.

Until the climate scientists expand our knowledge of all the variables involved, all their predictions are a joke.
 

[h=1]New report reveals a 23 year long pause in stratospheric temperature[/h]STATE OF THE CLIMATE REPORT REVEALS 23-YEAR TEMPERATURE PAUSE IN THE STRATOSPHERE London 27 March 2018: A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) counters media hype over recent warm global temperatures, showing that almost all of the sudden increase in temperatures in the last couple of years was caused by a record…
Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom