• 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!

What Climate science facts can we agree on?

iguanaman said:
The warming of the oceans is not fully calculated in that data if at all. 2/3rds of the excess heat is going into the oceans. We are still warming as scheduled. The deniers constant changing of the goalposts should indicate the futility of the effort but it's like they wake up everyday with no memory of yesterday.



https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Click to expand...

As far as I know, there are no climate change deniers, just Man made global warming. I live in Canada, and we take in more co2 emissions than we produce. My guess is if we got rid of 20 billion tons more of co2 emissions we would import the same amount. Without co2 emissions all green vegetation would die. I have many carbon capturing units on my yard, they are called grass and leaves. Please stop saying climate change deniers unless you can show me who said it, when and where they said it. I have yet to hear someone call themselves a climate change denier.
 
KevinKohler said:
I would say it's been getting warmer since the last ice age...
Click to expand...

Then you'd be wrong. According to various reconstructions, the Earth's temperature reached its Holocene maximum about 8,000 years ago. With a few minor excursions, it seems to have been gradually falling since then. Until about 150 years ago, that is, when it suddenly began to rocket upwards.
 
Surface Detail said:
1) Well, everybody else calls the quantity which you give as 2.72 the feedback factor. Gain is something different in a system with feedback. I think it is best to stick with convention if we want to avoid confusion.

2) You misunderstand. The two figures that you used to calculate the feedback factor were specified only to one (3 C) and two (1.1 C) significant figures; it is therefore wrong to specify you result to three significant figures (2.72). You should never give the answer to a calculation to more significant figures than the input values. Did you not study science at school?
Click to expand...
I understand, it simply is not relevant, gain, feedback factor, whatever, it is the amount of amplification necessary
for the input of 1.1 to produce an output of 3. (Gain is a much older term related to amplified systems, but a rose by any other name.)
If you want to discuss significant figures, we should really start with the temperature data,
but this thread is about what we can agree on.
 
longview said:
I understand, it simply is not relevant, gain, feedback factor, whatever, it is the amount of amplification necessary
for the input of 1.1 to produce an output of 3. (Gain is a much older term related to amplified systems, but a rose by any other name.)
If you want to discuss significant figures, we should really start with the temperature data,
but this thread is about what we can agree on.
Click to expand...

Agreeing on the use of conventional definitions would be a start!

And, once again, my point on significant figures was purely a mathematical one. It applies irrespective of the quantities being calculated. You should never give the answer to a calculation to more significant figures than the input values. Honestly, this is high school stuff.
 
Surface Detail said:
Agreeing on the use of conventional definitions would be a start!

And, once again, my point on significant figures was purely a mathematical one. It applies irrespective of the quantities being calculated. You should never give the answer to a calculation to more significant figures than the input values. Honestly, this is high school stuff.
Click to expand...

So what do you think the feedback factor should be?

As to significant figures it is fine if the gain or feedback factor is 2.7 vs 2.72.
 
longview said:
So what do you think the feedback factor should be?

As to significant figures it is fine if the gain or feedback factor is 2.7 vs 2.72.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that a feedback factor of 2.7 sounds about right. Hansen gives a range of 2 - 4 in his paper, and I think this is still regarded as being in the correct ballpark.
 
Surface Detail said:
You deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, therefore you are a denier.
Click to expand...

Consensus is not science. You deny the proper scientific process. Besides, in all but Cooks paper, the consensus is that greenhouse gasses have a significant effect.

Hint... Look up the definition of significant. It generally means 5% to 10% as the minimum needed to satisfy using that word. That means you have 97% of the climate scientists agreeing that CO2 is at lest 10% of the warming. That is the true way to speak of the consensus. To do otherwise is denial.
 
longview said:
So what do you think the feedback factor should be?

As to significant figures it is fine if the gain or feedback factor is 2.7 vs 2.72.
Click to expand...

I wasn't following close, but I think his point is that you used 2.72 as the factor needed to change the 1.1 to the ECS of around 3.0. It would actually be 2.72 - 1 = 1.72. Multiply the 1.1 by 1.72 and you get 1.9, for feedback. Added to the original 1.1, you get 3.0.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Consensus is not science. You deny the proper scientific process. Besides, in all but Cooks paper, the consensus is that greenhouse gasses have a significant effect.

Hint... Look up the definition of significant. It generally means 5% to 10% as the minimum needed to satisfy using that word. That means you have 97% of the climate scientists agreeing that CO2 is at lest 10% of the warming. That is the true way to speak of the consensus. To do otherwise is denial.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could cite Cook's paper and highlight the parts that support your argument. If not, we can safely conclude that this is just more of your usual gibberish.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wasn't following close, but I think his point is that you used 2.72 as the factor needed to change the 1.1 to the ECS of around 3.0. It would actually be 2.72 - 1 = 1.72. Multiply the 1.1 by 1.72 and you get 1.9, for feedback. Added to the original 1.1, you get 3.0.
Click to expand...

No, that wasn't my point at all.
 
Tim the plumber said:
1, It has got warmer.

2, It has been getting warmer, with ups and downs, since about 1850.

3, The IPCC has made the most of the science to get the range of predictions to include the maximum it can. The numbers cannot reasonably exceed the IPCC's numbers.
Click to expand...

It has clearly been getting warmer since the melting of the Laurentide Ice sheet 18,000 years ago. There had to be a dramatic increase in global warming by something to melt 1 to 2 miles of ice the size of Canada. Do I think we have added to the natural warming of the planet right now. With out question but there are much bigger players needed to melt that much ice. I don't think we could melt that much ice if we tried let alone reverse the cold needed to make that much ice.
 
Surface Detail said:
Perhaps you could cite Cook's paper and highlight the parts that support your argument. If not, we can safely conclude that this is just more of your usual gibberish.
Click to expand...

He thinks ‘significant’ is 5%, probably because he read something on statistical significance once that said this.

He confuses the concept of a 95% confidence interval with the number 5% and has made this error repeatedly.

In fact, the last time I pointed it out to him he put me on ‘ignore’.

The pointing and laughing probably didnt help.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why is he wrong then? Because he called it gain instead of feedback factor?

Hint...

Same thing!
Click to expand...

No, they are not the same thing.

The relationship between the feedback factor f and gain g is f = 1 / (1 - g), as you would have known if you could be bothered to read the reference I gave earlier in the thread. You clearly know nothing about this topic, and yet you persist in parading your ignorance. For heaven's sake, stop making such a fool of yourself. I'm embarrassed on your behalf!
 
It's not 97% of scientists that agree, they mixed the stats with the amount of lititure written on the subject. one little lie makes a big difference.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, they are not the same thing.

The relationship between the feedback factor f and gain g is f = 1 / (1 - g), as you would have known if you could be bothered to read the reference I gave earlier in the thread. You clearly know nothing about this topic, and yet you persist in parading your ignorance. For heaven's sake, stop making such a fool of yourself. I'm embarrassed on your behalf!
Click to expand...

Cool...

You finally see why "words have meaning."

Proper words make a difference, don't they?

Please remember that in other discussions from now on.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Cool...

You finally see why "words have meaning."

Proper words make a difference, don't they?

Please remember that in other discussions from now on.
Click to expand...

It was you who implied they were the same thing. You might want to take your own advice.
 
Surface Detail said:
It was you who implied they were the same thing. You might want to take your own advice.
Click to expand...

Can you say subsidy? Significance?

What other words have I stressed had meaning that you were in denial of?

Did you fail to see my point?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Can you say subsidy? Significance?

What other words have I stressed had meaning that you were in denial of?

Did you fail to see my point?
Click to expand...

WTF are you gibbering about? You implied that "feedback factor" and "gain" are the same thing. They aren't. Please try to learn the basics of the topic before embarrassing yourself.
 
Surface Detail said:
WTF are you gibbering about? You implied that "feedback factor" and "gain" are the same thing. They aren't. Please try to learn the basics of the topic before embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking of other threads that you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of other words.

Why are you being so hypocritical?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom