• 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!

Climate Change from CO2 - it's Hard to Refute the Actual Data

A head tax on births might help, you think? ;)

Probably would work.

We tax people who are rich at a much higher rate than the poor.

The result: there are fewer rich people.

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
 
It's funny how a thread on Mankind Induced Climate Change turns everybody into a scientific expert. I have a Bachelors of Science and I claim no such expertise, because I'm not a Climatologist. Therefore I go to the experts. The National Climate Assessment of 2014 is authored by such experts, and reviewed by hundreds of experts, along with the National Academy of Scientists. Here is one of their statements:

Overview | National Climate Assessment

Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution, and it has been known for almost two centuries that this carbon dioxide traps heat. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases. Data show that natural factors like the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming observed over the past 50 years. Sensors on satellites have measured the sun’s output with great accuracy and found no overall increase during the past half century. Large volcanic eruptions during this period, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991, have exerted a short-term cooling influence. In fact, if not for human activities, global climate would actually have cooled slightly over the past 50 years. The pattern of temperature change through the layers of the atmosphere, with warming near the surface and cooling higher up in the stratosphere, further confirms that it is the buildup of heat-trapping gases (also known as “greenhouse gases”) that has caused most of the Earth’s warming over the past half century.

We are cooler than the temperature peak of this interglacial.

We are cooler than the temperature peaks of any interglacials over the last half million years.

The CO2 concentration in all of these peaks was lower than current by more than 100 ppm.

In all previous interglacials, Ice Ages started when the CO2 concentration was at its peak in that particular interglacial.

What do your climate experts say about these events? How do they square it with the CO2 causes warming mantra?
 
Yes, thank you for posting further details that agree with what I said.

You can't just post two sets of datapoints and declare it "speaks for itself." Here's an example:

autism_organic_foods.jpg

I'm sure there is also a demonstrable correlation between warm, fuzzy kittens kept as pets and the sale of professional sports tickets.

Just sayin'...
 
Laughable assertion. And ironic, considering that's what describes your side of the argument ;)

Evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change is best presented using a very narrow sliver of time and a very narrow presentation of historic data.
 
The correlation is one thing. The consensus of scientific experts is what really seals the deal. How many scientific experts agree with your graph? 97-98%?

LOL...

Consensus has proven time and again to be a joke, because you guys are too ignorant to see it for what it really means.
 
Evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change is best presented using a very narrow sliver of time and a very narrow presentation of historic data.

Incorrect.
 
Except that the consensus is only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose increase will cause some warming.
The range of the warming that doubling the CO2 level will caused has not changed in 20 plus years, (1.5 to 4.5C).
If there was any consensus on how much warming 2XCO2 would cause, the range would start to tighten up!

That's about the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. That's like saying we will have an earthquake in Alaska tomorrow. Weather is somewhat random, as all the Deniers love to state all the time. Whether an increase is 1.5C or 4.5C or anywhere in-between, the effects will be drastic and permanent. A gift to your grandchildren?
 
Well, if YOU say so, how can that be refuted?

Oh, yeah: Science!

Seems like we're cooler now than we've been in the last 400 Million years.

So much for Global Warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

<snip>




500 million years of climate change​




In consecutive posts you claim we're using a very narrow set of data and then immediately post 500 million years of temperature data.
 
It was 10 degrees below normal in Indianapolis the last few days. That speaks for itself as well.

Doesn't say a thing about the cause of climate change or put climate change in the context of geographic time just as your graph does not.

I saw a news report. I think it was NBC. The info babe was talking with a scientist and they were lamenting the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park. She asked why the glaciers were melting. The scientist guy said words to the effect that it was getting warmer.

She went on to say that the glaciers had been there for 7000 years. She did not close the circle on this comment, though: THE GLACIERS WERE NOT THER 8000 YEARS AGO.

Why? Because it was warmer.

However, the CO2 was dramatically lower; about 280 ppm.

WHAT CAUSED THAT WARMING?

Did you know that the deceptive graph you posted starts the measure of climate from the coldest point of climate in this interglacial?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
<snip>


Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is not shown on the graph.
<snip>

You should study the sciences that evaluate this historical data. There are error factors and many unknowns. Some have errors of +/- 10,000 years. And it's also been pointed out that they just do not know all the factors that were involved back then. I'm not saying that these studies have no merit. The here-and-now studies are very thorough and accurate, because all angles are being reviewed. I urge you to read the IPCC AR5 if you want to analyze the thoroughness of today's conclusions.
 
That's about the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. That's like saying we will have an earthquake in Alaska tomorrow. Weather is somewhat random, as all the Deniers love to state all the time. Whether an increase is 1.5C or 4.5C or anywhere in-between, the effects will be drastic and permanent. A gift to your grandchildren?
Actually not! If the ECS is in the 1.5 C range almost no one would notice.
If it were in the 3 to 4.5 C range some negative consequences could results, but even that is uncertain.
Thankfully as your graph demonstrates, the likely ECS would be between 1.5 and about 1.9 C,
and even that is predicated on our actually being able to double the CO2 level.
My Grandchildren will grow up in a world with less harsh winters, and not much different summers.
 
It was 10 degrees below normal in Indianapolis the last few days. That speaks for itself as well.

Doesn't say a thing about the cause of climate change or put climate change in the context of geographic time just as your graph does not.

I saw a news report. I think it was NBC. The info babe was talking with a scientist and they were lamenting the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park. She asked why the glaciers were melting. The scientist guy said words to the effect that it was getting warmer.

She went on to say that the glaciers had been there for 7000 years. She did not close the circle on this comment, though: THE GLACIERS WERE NOT THER 8000 YEARS AGO.

Why? Because it was warmer.

However, the CO2 was dramatically lower; about 280 ppm.

WHAT CAUSED THAT WARMING?

Did you know that the deceptive graph you posted starts the measure of climate from the coldest point of climate in this interglacial?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
<snip>


Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is not shown on the graph.
<snip>

CO2 isn't the only variable that affects global temperatures.
 
Actually not! If the ECS is in the 1.5 C range almost no one would notice.
If it were in the 3 to 4.5 C range some negative consequences could results, but even that is uncertain.
Thankfully as your graph demonstrates, the likely ECS would be between 1.5 and about 1.9 C,
and even that is predicated on our actually being able to double the CO2 level.
My Grandchildren will grow up in a world with less harsh winters, and not much different summers.

With the record temperatures of the last 3 years, 2015-2017, your low-end theory seems very doubtful. However, just for the sake of argument, even at 1.5 deg C to 1.9 deg C, storms will hold about 10-15% more water. If I recall, you live in Houston, correct? I've outlined what 1" of flooding can do to a home (replace flooring, baseboard trim, drywall, insulation, etc). I'll ask again - "a gift to your grandchildren"?
 
With the record temperatures of the last 3 years, 2015-2017, your low-end theory seems very doubtful. However, just for the sake of argument, even at 1.5 deg C to 1.9 deg C, storms will hold about 10-15% more water. If I recall, you live in Houston, correct? I've outlined what 1" of flooding can do to a home (replace flooring, baseboard trim, drywall, insulation, etc). I'll ask again - "a gift to your grandchildren"?

On the contrary, the low end is by far the most likely.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

[FONT=&quot]. . . The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . . [/FONT]
 
With the record temperatures of the last 3 years, 2015-2017, your low-end theory seems very doubtful. However, just for the sake of argument, even at 1.5 deg C to 1.9 deg C, storms will hold about 10-15% more water. If I recall, you live in Houston, correct? I've outlined what 1" of flooding can do to a home (replace flooring, baseboard trim, drywall, insulation, etc). I'll ask again - "a gift to your grandchildren"?
Again the Hurricane experts say that AGW was not a factor, only the speed of the storm.
also bear in mind that while 20% of Houston saw flooding (a very large number), 80% did not flood.
Consider the 1.9 C ECS, we are half way there, did you notice? Did you thank your grandfather?
No if the warming is below 2 C, it will be indistinguishable from the rate of warming we have all been living through.
 
On the contrary, the low end is by far the most likely.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

[FONT="][B]. . . The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity[/B], by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. [/FONT][FONT="]The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . . [/FONT]

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/transient-and-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
Equilibrium sensitivities in global climate models typically range from 2 to more than 4C,
 
Except for the fact that most of the data the left is using to claim man-made climate change is from politicized science with no realistic peer review.

You just made that statement up out of thin air... So scientific institutions such as NASA, NOAA, AGU etc and their scientists...don't publish and rely on peer-reviewed literature..Well over a century of astronomy, oceanography, geology, glaciology etc. which makes up AGW science is not the best peer-reviewed literature available? What an amazingly ridiculous claim... All the satellite data, buoy data, ships data and land based temperature data analysis is all fraudulent and not peer-reviewed...got it.
 
From your link

Say no more.

As you wish. It's the personal blog of the Chairman of the Raccah Institute of Physics at Hebrew University and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. The text is excerpted from his notes for a presentation at the Cambridge Union.
 
As you wish. It's the personal blog of the Chairman of the Raccah Institute of Physics at Hebrew University and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. The text is excerpted from his notes for a presentation at the Cambridge Union.

Handwaving was your game. Deal with it.
 
On the contrary, the low end is by far the most likely.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

[FONT="][B]. . . The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity[/B], by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. [/FONT][FONT="]The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . . [/FONT]

Meaningless drivel.
 
Back
Top Bottom