• 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!

How Warm can the Earth get?

When Al Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears. Today, only 26,000 remain.

3,600°F. This is the mean global temp. from the earth’s earliest days. Even after the Hadean period, and the planet had tens of millions of years to cool, surface temperatures were more than 400°F.

-"Humans can't survive these temperatures? Why mention it?"

It debunks the climatological "Point of no Return”. The earth was able to cool itself from a far higher temperature than humans could ever produce.

-"Have humans warmed the earth more than it has ever been warmed before?"

No. From 600 myo to 800 myo, during the Neoproterozoic era, the earth had sea ice down to the equator. Geologists reason that volcanoes brought the earth out of this ice age to mean global temperatures of 90°F. (The average today is 60°F.) Nature was 100% responsible for this massive mean temperature rise with no human activity. This means that natural global warming is far more devastating than human activity.

73°F. (Remember the average today is 60°F.) That was the average temperature during the PETM which occurred 56 myo. During the PETM, the poles were free of ice and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. The Mesozoic era —age of dinosaurs- saw even higher mean temperatures.

Unanswered questions of Climate Science:

If the polar ice caps are melting then why is Antarctic sea ice growing?

If the #1 cause of climate change is livestock bowel movements then why do regulations target fossil fuels?

How did life thrive in a warmer world and what can we learn from these periods?

If the globe is able to recover from climate change then why should we worry about this in the long term? We aren't doing permanent damage to the planet.

If climatology is an exact science then what is the effect of 1 ton of CO2 or CH4 on mean global temperature?

What % of climate change is caused by humans?

What % of humans will die from climate change? What % of Americans will die?

Climate science cannot answer any of these questions, yet. The public gives climatologists the Last Say on public policy but they are not gods. The mean temperature has not been warming for 15 years. Pacific cooling, which was predicted by 0 computer models, has balanced out the rising north sea temp.

The IPCC's latest report shows that in the next 100 years sea levels will only rise by 2 meters and temperature will rise by 4-7 C and then go into a period of cooling. Humans are perfectly capable of moving a little further away from the ocean and wearing fewer sweaters.

The USA will be relatively unaffected by climate change. I live on the Great Lakes which is projected to lose 2.5 meters of sea level by 2100. As the temperature increases so does evaporation. The Great Lakes will also insulate the USA from droughts.

-"But Global Famine!"

I am a farmer. When Global Famine hits then food prices will soar and I will become wealthy. The USA won't take climate refugees so we should be fine.

My personal preference (or bias for the cynics) is nuclear. The IPCC recommends that all nations double nuclear output by 2050. France supplies 39% of its country on nuclear power.

Nuclear is safer than Solar.

Nuclear energy is also cheaper than Solar.

Nuclear energy costs .02 $ per Kwh

Do you want to pay six times as much for an energy source that kills more people?

If we stop discovering new fossil fuels and new technology then we will run out of fossil fuels in 110 years.

As someone who has lived for 19 years less than 11 miles from a nuclear power plant, I am confident nuclear is the future. Unfortunately, investments for nuclear have been sidelined for solar and wind based on public hysteria.

I firmly believe that as fossil fuels run out the debate will become Nuclear vs. hysteria rather than fossil fuels vs. green energy. If that happens then nuclear will win.

The only reason that there were 7,000 polar bears in 1948 and there are 26,000 now, is because as usual, back then, gun powder

worked faster than the melting of a habitat.

In fact, polar bear population increased from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today.

But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that today

there are about 22,000 polar bears living in 20 different populations.

Next question ?

Bet you can't wait until mankind partially (about 80%) vaporizes yet another 200 BILLION TONS of oil

to leave another 40 billion tons of CO2 and another 40 billion tons of UNburnt hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

It's ok blogroids, you'll evolve. I can't wait either but will be unlucky enough to die too soon to see the big moment

when the last penny of profit is wrung out of oil.
 
Yes, and the works of thousands of individual scientists, and scientific teams are represented in the IPCC AR releases. If Mr. Curry really had something to contribute, the IPCC would factor his work into their databases.
Actually the Work of Dr Judith Curry, and the scientist who were the lead authors on IPCC AR5, arrive at a best estimate
of ECS much closer that most are willing to admit, but let's look just for fun.
Lewis Curry 2018 found a best estimate of ECS at 1.5 C
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf
Otto et al 2013, found a best estimate of ECS as 2.0 C, that somehow got lost on the editing table before the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
So only .5 C separates, Lewis Curry, and the Scientist of IPCC AR5, quite a bit narrower than the stated range of 1.5 to 4.5 C.
 
LOL...

They do it all the time by accepting government research grant money to show AGW is real. just a different side of the coin, but AGW related grants are more than 500 times that of what you call denial grants.

He's one of those trapped inside the echo chamber. He thinks the people doing this science are are just number crunchers who go where the data take them. The reality is, most of them are liberals who take the data where they want it to go.As the saying goes, if you torture the data long enough , you can get it to confes to almost anything.


He naively thinks the people giving out these grants are also objective and just give it to the scientists who promise the most interesting research.
there was a study in Science that showed that only 39 out of 100 psychological l studies published in leading journals could be replicated.
I would be shocked if the the number was even that high for climate science studies.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and the works of thousands of individual scientists, and scientific teams are represented in the IPCC AR releases. If Mr. Curry really had something to contribute, the IPCC would factor his work into their databases.

LOL...

You really think so?

This is political. Would the democrats let a conservative republican contribute in a conversion of theirs, or vise-versa?
 
It's Ms. Curry, Judith to be exact. Lewis is Nic Lewis. Their paper was published in the AMS Journal of Climate, and is the topic of a thread here at DP. Learn first. Then post.

Another piece of evidence these warmers don't ever read papers. Only what the pundits tell them to regurgitate.
 
He naively thinks the people giving out these grants are also objective and just give it to the scientists who promise the most interesting research.
there was a study in Science that showed that only 39 out of 100 psychological l studies published in leading journals could be replicated.
I would be shocked if the the number was even that high for climate science studies.

The thing with the climate science papers, is that most are highly accurate for what they do. However, most are an exercise of "what if's."

I have read countless papers that within the methodology, they say "is we assume (variable) is (value)" then go on to some pretty good science. The problem is, it's just an exercise of guesses. Then these same papers are reported by the pundits as if the assumed variable values are real. most of the papers the alarmists use, are calculations based on assumed values, and RCP 8.5 modeling.

You notice I constantly ask these people to quote the relevant part of a paper? I want them to quote such a section so I can reveal the truth, but they never do.
 
The only reason that there were 7,000 polar bears in 1948 and there are 26,000 now, is because as usual, back then, gun powder

worked faster than the melting of a habitat.

In fact, polar bear population increased from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today.

But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that today

there are about 22,000 polar bears living in 20 different populations.

.

22,000 is the low end of the WWF estimate range. High end is 31,000.

Polar bear status, distribution & population | WWF
wwf.panda.org › ... › Polar Bear




Timeline of polar bear conservation. Before 1973. Several polar bear populations were decimated by unsustainable hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers from the 1600s right through to the ...



 
The only reason that there were 7,000 polar bears in 1948 and there are 26,000 now, is because as usual, back then, gun powder

worked faster than the melting of a habitat.

In fact, polar bear population increased from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today.

But the size of the world’s polar bear population is subject to much debate. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that today

there are about 22,000 polar bears living in 20 different populations.

Next question ?

Bet you can't wait until mankind partially (about 80%) vaporizes yet another 200 BILLION TONS of oil

to leave another 40 billion tons of CO2 and another 40 billion tons of UNburnt hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

It's ok blogroids, you'll evolve. I can't wait either but will be unlucky enough to die too soon to see the big moment

when the last penny of profit is wrung out of oil.

If you burn 1 unit mass of petrol you get about 3.4 unit mass of CO2.

Not sure where the 200 Gt of oil comes from as this would be 230 cubic kilometers of the stuff and I though we had used about 2 or 3 of those.


It's ok blogroids, you'll evolve.

But I doubt very much that you will become numerate.
 
Back
Top Bottom