• 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!

GAO argues for acting on climate change

longview said:
I don't think anyone is trying to prove that added CO2 does, or does not do anything.
It is a question of how much the climate will respond to the added CO2, there will be some response!
The basic concept is that if we double the CO2 level, the top of the atmosphere flux (Energy Imbalance) will change and portions
of the the atmosphere will retain more energy, and be forced to warm in response.
The IPCC's predicted forcing is 3.71 Watts per meter square.
The warming from the added CO2 alone would be inconsequential, so the concept adds in the idea that the
CO2 warming would cause amplified feedbacks to warm the atmosphere, more that the initial CO2 warming.
Lindzen Choi, Fig 1 has a good image of this feedback.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
In 2000 they they put up the CERES satellite to validate the concept of CO2 forcing,
and it does show the flux increasing with added CO2, but at only about half of the predicted 3.71 Wm-2 rate.
Click to expand...

And I think the satellite temperatures show warming has been less sensitive than what the majority was saying.
I don't see much acceleration in the increase, it looks more linear. This has been explained as more ocean absorption than previously thought.

Half of the predicted 'forcing' sounds about correct, at rough glance.

But the NAS was still correct in 2001, and the GAO is correct with the report in the OP.
Even if it's linear a 1 degree C per 35 years change is a problem
 
Last edited:
CletusWilbury said:
And I think the satellite temperatures show warming has been less sensitive than what the majority was saying.
I don't see much acceleration in the increase, it looks more linear. This has been explained as more ocean absorption than previously thought.

Half of the predicted 'forcing' sounds about correct, at rough glance.

But the NAS was still correct in 2001, and the GAO is correct with the report in the OP.
Even if it's linear a 1 degree C per 35 years change is a problem
Click to expand...

The difference is the warming is supposed to be a result of the energy imbalance, if the energy imbalance is off by half,
then the additional energy that the oceans are supposed to be absorbing to not show the warming, dosen't exists.
The observed changes are no where near a 1 C per 35 years, but currently at about .18 C per decade.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is the biggest problem with the climate agenda. With all the research I have done in the aspect of solar, land use, and soot. I see CO2 as nothing but a good thing, as in enhances the green spaces of the earth. Note that these three items I listed are the ones the IPCC et. al. claim medium or less for a level of understanding. I will contend they do not want better research into these areas, as the best of their agenda driven people know it will undermine their cause.
Click to expand...

The arrogance! "All the research I have done...". How ridiculous. Your qualifications are somewhere between ZERO and NIL.

Here is a list of the authors and reviewers of the U.S. National Climate Assessment of 2014.

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

Perhaps you should take up the "Flat Earth" for your new conspiracy theory.

Home | National Climate Assessment
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
The arrogance! "All the research I have done...". How ridiculous. Your qualifications are somewhere between ZERO and NIL.

Here is a list of the authors and reviewers of the U.S. National Climate Assessment of 2014.

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

Perhaps you should take up the "Flat Earth" for your new conspiracy theory.

Home | National Climate Assessment
Click to expand...

You should just go away, as you have no understanding of peer reviewed papers, and go with the propaganda.
 
longview said:
The difference is the warming is supposed to be a result of the energy imbalance, if the energy imbalance is off by half,
then the additional energy that the oceans are supposed to be absorbing to not show the warming, dosen't exists.
The observed changes are no where near a 1 C per 35 years, but currently at about .18 C per decade.
Click to expand...

Ok, 0.18x3.5= 0.63 C per 35 years
even that is very fast change
 
CletusWilbury said:
Ok, 0.18x3.5= 0.63 C per 35 years
even that is very fast change
Click to expand...
Actually we do not know if that is a fast change or not, a similar rate occurred between 1910 and 1944,
and the proxies lack the resolution to show much in the per decade rate.
(Marcott had an average resolution of 120 years)
Honestly, the long term temperatures look like a collection of constructive interference patterns, with several input frequencies.
when things line up we get spikes overlay ed on general long term warming.
 
CletusWilbury said:
Ok, 0.18x3.5= 0.63 C per 35 years
even that is very fast change
Click to expand...

Yes, and the 0.18C is a low-end number. As evidenced by recent temperatures, including 2017, the increases seem to be accelerating.

httpnca2014.globalchange.govsitesreportfilesimagesweb-largef1-temp-decade-hi.jpg

2016 was the warmest year ever, and note how the 1.56 deg F temperature difference of 2017 is off the above chart.
 
longview said:
Actually we do not know if that is a fast change or not, a similar rate occurred between 1910 and 1944,
and the proxies lack the resolution to show much in the per decade rate.
(Marcott had an average resolution of 120 years)
Honestly, the long term temperatures look like a collection of constructive interference patterns, with several input frequencies.
when things line up we get spikes overlay ed on general long term warming.
Click to expand...

True, that was as unsupported claim I made.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, and the 0.18C is a low-end number. As evidenced by recent temperatures, including 2017, the increases seem to be accelerating.

View attachment 67224406

2016 was the warmest year ever, and note how the 1.56 deg F temperature difference of 2017 is off the above chart.
Click to expand...

What is the source of the data you present?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom