• 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!

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

Monday Mirthiness – climate cluelessness comes full circle @ClimateNexus

[FONT=&quot]In the beginning, 30 years ago, in June 1988, it was “global warming has begun” as portrayed by Dr. James Hansen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
NYT-1988-global-warming-begun-720x464.png
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then later, “climate change” became the universal buzzword to make it easier to blame anything and everything on “climate change” and not just the original global warming premise, which isn’t panning out.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, hilariously, it’s come full circle according to the alarmistas at Climate Nexus.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
climate-nexus-608x720.png
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, that’s right folks, climate change drives global warming![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The stupid, it burns.[/FONT]



 
Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, since we don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis, arguing over whether the predictions stand up to the manufactured data is rather pointless.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The whole concept of a 'greenhouse' gas denies several laws of physics:

The first is the law of energy conservation. The Earth is warmed by absorbing energy from the Sun. The only way to make the Earth warmer is to increase the output of the Sun. It is not possible to create the necessary energy out of any gas or vapor.

The second is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This theory states that entropy always increases or stays the same in any system. It never decreases. If a gas or vapor could somehow trap energy yet still let it in, that would mean entropy is decreasing, in violation of this law. It is this law that gives the direction for heat. Heat always flows from hot to cold. To attempt to warm the surface by using a colder gas in the atmosphere, such as CO2, is a direct violation of this law. It is not possible to make hot coffee with ice. It is not possible to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas.

The third is the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity constant * temperature ^ 4. For any gas or vapor to prevent energy from leaving Earth (for any reason) would require a reduction in radiance. To say that Earth would warm in such a situation is in violation of this law. Reduced radiance means the Earth is colder, not warmer.

There is also the paradox built around 'greenhouse' gases. The surface of the Moon during the daytime can reach temperatures around 250 deg F. The Moon has no appreciable atmosphere, no CO2, no 'greenhouse' gases, nothing. The Earth, has an atmosphere, CO2, and other so-called 'greenhouse' gases. If one or more of these gases or vapors could warm the Earth, why is the daytime temperature of the Earth so much colder? There is nowhere on the daylight surface of the Earth that even approaches 250 deg F. Thus, paradox.

These predictions are politically motivated. They are an effort to blame 'big oil', ' big corporations', or any other successful business venture for the so-called 'problem' of a warming Earth. They are an effort to implement socialism and punish business. With an entire scientific community largely funded by a single source (the government), this effort by the government to justify expanding itself and to grow (by using a 'crisis' to justify expansion), and a media that more about sensationalism than facts, this becomes the coordinated noise we see now.

'Greenhouse' gases are not the problem. The popularity of Socialism and Marxism is the problem. The manufacturing of the 'crisis' of so-called global 'warming' is the problem.
 
Last edited:
Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, since we don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis, arguing over whether the predictions stand up to the manufactured data is rather pointless.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The whole concept of a 'greenhouse' gas denies several laws of physics:

The first is the law of energy conservation. The Earth is warmed by absorbing energy from the Sun. The only way to make the Earth warmer is to increase the output of the Sun. It is not possible to create the necessary energy out of any gas or vapor.

The second is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This theory states that entropy always increases or stays the same in any system. It never decreases. If a gas or vapor could somehow trap energy yet still let it in, that would mean entropy is decreasing, in violation of this law. It is this law that gives the direction for heat. Heat always flows from hot to cold. To attempt to warm the surface by using a colder gas in the atmosphere, such as CO2, is a direct violation of this law. It is not possible to make hot coffee with ice. It is not possible to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas.

The third is the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity constant * temperature ^ 4. For any gas or vapor to prevent energy from leaving Earth (for any reason) would require a reduction in radiance. To say that Earth would warm in such a situation is in violation of this law. Reduced radiance means the Earth is colder, not warmer.

There is also the paradox built around 'greenhouse' gases. The surface of the Moon during the daytime can reach temperatures around 250 deg F. The Moon has no appreciable atmosphere, no CO2, no 'greenhouse' gases, nothing. The Earth, has an atmosphere, CO2, and other so-called 'greenhouse' gases. If one or more of these gases or vapors could warm the Earth, why is the daytime temperature of the Earth so much colder? There is nowhere on the daylight surface of the Earth that even approaches 250 deg F. Thus, paradox.

These predictions are politically motivated. They are an effort to blame 'big oil', ' big corporations', or any other successful business venture for the so-called 'problem' of a warming Earth. They are an effort to implement socialism and punish business. With an entire scientific community largely funded by a single source (the government), this effort by the government to justify expanding itself and to grow (by using a 'crisis' to justify expansion), and a media that more about sensationalism than facts, this becomes the coordinated noise we see now.

'Greenhouse' gases are not the problem. The popularity of Socialism and Marxism is the problem. The manufacturing of the 'crisis' of so-called global 'warming' is the problem.

You’re gonna be surprised one day when you take high school physics.
 
It’s not a fallacy at all.

It’s a joke.

Seems your interpersonal skills are as deficient as your scientific ones.
Redefinition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Insult fallacy.
 
I will also point out that both the authors are deeply involved in the Cato institute.

And his is one that directly addresses that piece Sorry, deniers - 30 years later, Hansen's climate change predictions hold up - Red, Green, and Blue

From the link in #32:

[FONT=&quot]. . . Using only Hansen’s own data, the above demonstrates that Hansen was not “extremely accurate” in his 1988 predictions because a simple, commonly unreliable, linear extrapolation performed better than his model in predicting the last 30 years of temperatures. One of the consequences of demonstrating the ‘Business As Usual’ linear extrapolation of past temperatures as being superior to the model used by Hansen, is that it isn’t necessary to appeal to anthropogenic influences to account for a phenomenon that started 12 millennia ago, with the end of the last major glaciation. Occam’s Razor suggests that the best explanation for something is the simplest explanation. That is, there is no compelling need to complicate the explanation with human interference. Climate changes. That is what it does. That is why climatologists use a 30-year average of weather to define a climate regime or episode. While I’m sure that humans are having an impact on climate, it isn’t just their CO2 emissions, and it certainly isn’t fossil fuel combustion that is the primary control of temperature. Notwithstanding how poor Hansen’s predictions actually were, I think we should still keep before us his assessment of computer modeling:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“There are major [my emphasis added] uncertainties in the model, which arise especially from assumptions about (1) global climate sensitivity and (2) heat uptake and transport by the ocean, …”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He should have mentioned also the need for parameterization of clouds in the models. In any event, we should take computer model ‘projections’ with a grain of sea salt – and anything that Hansen says with a block of salt.[/FONT]
 
From the link in #32:

[FONT=&quot]. . . Using only Hansen’s own data, the above demonstrates that Hansen was not “extremely accurate” in his 1988 predictions because a simple, commonly unreliable, linear extrapolation performed better than his model in predicting the last 30 years of temperatures. One of the consequences of demonstrating the ‘Business As Usual’ linear extrapolation of past temperatures as being superior to the model used by Hansen, is that it isn’t necessary to appeal to anthropogenic influences to account for a phenomenon that started 12 millennia ago, with the end of the last major glaciation. Occam’s Razor suggests that the best explanation for something is the simplest explanation. That is, there is no compelling need to complicate the explanation with human interference. Climate changes. That is what it does. That is why climatologists use a 30-year average of weather to define a climate regime or episode. While I’m sure that humans are having an impact on climate, it isn’t just their CO2 emissions, and it certainly isn’t fossil fuel combustion that is the primary control of temperature. Notwithstanding how poor Hansen’s predictions actually were, I think we should still keep before us his assessment of computer modeling:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“There are major [my emphasis added] uncertainties in the model, which arise especially from assumptions about (1) global climate sensitivity and (2) heat uptake and transport by the ocean, …”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He should have mentioned also the need for parameterization of clouds in the models. In any event, we should take computer model ‘projections’ with a grain of sea salt – and anything that Hansen says with a block of salt.[/FONT]

Actual scientists ( unlike the author of the blog post, who seems to be known primarily for...writing WUWT blog posts) disagree.
 
From the link in #32:

[FONT="]. . . Using only Hansen’s own data, the above demonstrates that Hansen was [B]not[/B] “extremely accurate” in his 1988 predictions because a simple, commonly unreliable, linear extrapolation performed better than his model in predicting the last 30 years of temperatures. One of the consequences of demonstrating the ‘Business As Usual’ linear extrapolation of past temperatures as being superior to the model used by Hansen, is that it isn’t necessary to appeal to anthropogenic influences to account for a phenomenon that started 12 millennia ago, with the end of the last major glaciation. Occam’s Razor suggests that the best explanation for something is the simplest explanation. That is, there is no compelling need to complicate the explanation with human interference. Climate changes. That is what it does. That is why climatologists use a 30-year average of weather to define a climate regime or episode. While I’m sure that humans are having an impact on climate, it isn’t just their CO[FONT=inherit]2[/FONT] emissions, and it certainly isn’t fossil fuel combustion that is the primary control of temperature. Notwithstanding how poor Hansen’s predictions actually were, I think we should still keep before us his assessment of computer modeling:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]“There are major [my emphasis added] uncertainties in the model, which arise especially from assumptions about (1) global climate sensitivity and (2) heat uptake and transport by the ocean, …”[/FONT]

[FONT="]He should have mentioned also the need for parameterization of clouds in the models. In any event, we should take computer model ‘projections’ with a grain of sea salt – and anything that Hansen says with a block of salt.[/FONT]

For all that, the claims from the deniers that we are in a cooling stage is astounding.

What is interesting, after years and years of being a climate change 'skeptic', the head of Nasa, AFTER becoming the head of Nasa, changed his mind.

https://www.wired.com/story/nasas-jim-bridenstine-agrees-humans-are-responsible-for-climate-change/
 
Climate, changes. Deal with it.

Climate does change. The issue, which you are trying to argue, is not that people are arguing that man has created it. The issue is that man has exacerbated it.

2018-07-01.jpg

Do we see how it goes way, way up in our time? Why is this so different from the rest of history? Well, according to the graph, which is inspired by people who look through telescopes and see tomato paste as a pizza ingredient not vegetable, it's because of man-made infrastructure and technology since the advent of the Industrial Age. By acknowledging this, we are dealing with it. The problem is that conservatives, who have allowed Fox News to politicize it in such a way that the same people who worked with Democrats to fix the hole in the ozone layer now deny science with every fiber of their being, have actively chosen not to deal with it.

You don't have to be the cliche.
 
Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth...

Er...according to science, "average global temperature in modern times is measured through special thermometers aboard ships, buoys and a number of weather stations functioning all over the world." I got this from a website called Science ABC. Aptly named, huh? The site also gives other common sense examples of what scientists use to measure the temperature of the Earth.

These predictions are politically motivated.

Rather the denial is politically motivated. Funny how this "hoax" also came out of the same indoctrination as Kenyan-born Obama and tomato-paste vegetable. And it is quite revealing when it is always the "conservatives" who deny it. The more "very" conservative one gets, the greater the denial.

file.jpg

From acknowledging and fixing the hole in the ozone layer to denying man's effect on Global Warming. Even worse, denying Global Warming altogether at first. Conservatives have come a long way since religiously tuning into FOX News.
 
Last edited:
Climate does change. The issue, which you are trying to argue, is not that people are arguing that man has created it. The issue is that man has exacerbated it.

View attachment 67235398

Do we see how it goes way, way up in our time? Why is this so different from the rest of history? Well, according to the graph, which is inspired by people who look through telescopes and see tomato paste as a pizza ingredient not vegetable, it's because of man-made infrastructure and technology since the advent of the Industrial Age. By acknowledging this, we are dealing with it. The problem is that conservatives, who have allowed Fox News to politicize it in such a way that the same people who worked with Democrats to fix the hole in the ozone layer now deny science with every fiber of their being, have actively chosen not to deal with it.

You don't have to be the cliche.

You don't know what you are talking about.
 
You don't know what you are talking about.

But *you* do?

Scientists (as opposed to high school grads who were weather technicians) tell us that essentially all the warming we have seen in the past decades is from human causes.

And it’s going to get much worse.

This has been demonstrated by accurate projections from decades ago, and there is very little argument about this from credible scientists.
 
Why does it matter what legal activities they do or support? Are you a bigot in that manner?

Cato is funded by individuals who make their money in oil and natural gas. And by ‘money’, I mean billions.

But you just keep pretending it’s just all about high minded principles. It’s so cute!
 
Actual scientists ( unlike the author of the blog post, who seems to be known primarily for...writing WUWT blog posts) disagree.

The tired credentialist argument again -- I'm sure advocates of Ptolemy used it against Copernicus too.
 
Climate News
Dr. Hansen’s Statistics

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach OK, this post has ended up having two parts, because as usual, I got side-tracked while looking at the first part. It’s the problem with science, too many interesting trails leading off the main highway … Part The First I wanted to point out an overlooked part of Dr. James…
 
Climate does change. The issue, which you are trying to argue, is not that people are arguing that man has created it. The issue is that man has exacerbated it.

Do we see how it goes way, way up in our time? Why is this so different from the rest of history? Well, according to the graph, which is inspired by people who look through telescopes and see tomato paste as a pizza ingredient not vegetable, it's because of man-made infrastructure and technology since the advent of the Industrial Age. By acknowledging this, we are dealing with it. The problem is that conservatives, who have allowed Fox News to politicize it in such a way that the same people who worked with Democrats to fix the hole in the ozone layer now deny science with every fiber of their being, have actively chosen not to deal with it.

You don't have to be the cliche.

Er...according to science, "average global temperature in modern times is measured through special thermometers aboard ships, buoys and a number of weather stations functioning all over the world." I got this from a website called Science ABC. Aptly named, huh? The site also gives other common sense examples of what scientists use to measure the temperature of the Earth.



Rather the denial is politically motivated. Funny how this "hoax" also came out of the same indoctrination as Kenyan-born Obama and tomato-paste vegetable. And it is quite revealing when it is always the "conservatives" who deny it. The more "very" conservative one gets, the greater the denial.


From acknowledging and fixing the hole in the ozone layer to denying man's effect on Global Warming. Even worse, denying Global Warming altogether at first. Conservatives have come a long way since religiously tuning into FOX News.

The leading scientific skeptics are Euro-style Social Democrats.
 
I don't get it. How are you tying Social Democracy to being a skeptic of Global Warming?

I'm pointing out that tying climate skepticism to US conservative politics is an inaccurate propaganda meme.
The two most important scientific climate skeptics are Professor Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Technical University and Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Shaviv was also an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in 2015. Both are Social Democrats by political persuasion.
 
I'm pointing out that tying climate skepticism to US conservative politics is an inaccurate propaganda meme.

Oh. But it seems pretty clear within our country that this is very much a Right-wing partisan push that began simply to oppose Obama and "the leftists." I mean, just look at this site. They are generally all right-wing, most of whom, are FOX News viewers. And Fox News expressly pushed the early idea that the entire thing was just a "liberal hoax." Then it turned into "so what, global warming happens." Now, it's just an exercise in ignoring the massive spike since the Industrial Age.

The two most important scientific climate skeptics are Professor Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Technical University and Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Shaviv was also an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in 2015. Both are Social Democrats by political persuasion.

These two are interesting. I had to check them out. Whatever their personal political leans, they collaborated on a book, The Cold Sun. For whatever reason, the book attracted considerable interest in Germany. I can't imagine why specifically Germany. Anyway, numerous scientists criticized the book for its underlying assumptions to be either outdated or highly speculative.

- Shivav appears to be more interested in promoting his own personal hypothesis that solar and cosmic-rays, passing through the spiral arm of the Milky Way, have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. Fine, but he seems to think that any other factor detracts from his general hypothesis. I don't see why it would. If he is right, then it would only explain the history of climate change, not the massive spike since the Industrial Age.

- Svensmark is also interested in his own theory of Cosmoclimatology. He pushes, during the last 100 years, that cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds, which means that cosmic rays "have more effect on the climate than man made CO2." But again, his hypothesis can be right. Though he doesn't explain why the vigorous action of the Sun over the last 100 years is unusual. I would point out that this period followed the emergence of the Industrial Age. Just a coincidence, Svensmark? It seems that he is pushing what the vast majority of scientists everywhere are pushing. He just seems to not want to acknowledge causality.

They both seem to be nervous that their own hypotheses won't be given credit if man made CO2 is a factor to today's climate change. I don't understand their skepticism.
 
Back
Top Bottom