• 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!

Guardian: Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week

Dittohead not! said:
It can't possibly be global warming. Trump has said that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to keep us from being competitive. If we can't believe Trump, who can we believe?

Besides, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of websites that attempt to disprove a scientific theory through cherry picking data and claiming that the world's scientific organizations are wrong. We'll no doubt see some of them cited right here in this very thread.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
". . . Climate modelers will object that this explanation doesn’t fit the theories about climate change. But those were the theories Hansen used, and they don’t fit the data. The bottom line is, climate science as encoded in the models is far from settled."

The Hansen forecasts 30 years later

[FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/03/the-hansen-forecasts-30-years-later/"]July 3, 2018[/URL] by curryja | 228 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick and John Christy
Note: this is a revised version to correct the statement about CFCs and methane in Scenario B.
How accurate were James Hansen’s 1988 testimony and subsequent JGR article forecasts of global warming? According to a laudatory article by AP’s Seth Borenstein, they “pretty much” came true, with other scientists claiming their accuracy was “astounding” and “incredible.” Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue in the Wall Street Journal, and Calvin Beisner in the Daily Caller, disputed this.
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

So far, "Climate Etc. and the Daily Caller." I'm surprised it took until page 2.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So far, "Climate Etc. and the Daily Caller." I'm surprised it took until page 2.
Click to expand...

Climate, Etc. is the website of Dr. Judith Curry, a highly respected climate scientist. Had you actually read the linked post, you would have seen that the Daily Caller reference was merely a passing mention as part of a summary of the controversy. If you want a serious discussion then you yourself must put forward a serious effort.

The post in question was authored by Dr. John Christy and Ross McKittrick.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why haven't you watered it? My lawn gets like that in the summer too if I don't water it.
Click to expand...

Because I am a responsible citizen. The recent prolonged hot, dry spell in the English Midlands is very unusual, and the water companies have been struggling to meet demand. They have asked us to refrain from watering lawns so as to conserve water for more essential purposes. All of my neighbours' lawns look similarly parched. A green lawn would be equivalent to planting a notice declaring yourself to be a selfish SOB!
 
Surface Detail said:
Because I am a responsible citizen. The recent prolonged hot, dry spell in the English Midlands is very unusual, and the water companies have been struggling to meet demand. They have asked us to refrain from watering lawns so as to conserve water for more essential purposes. All of my neighbours' lawns look similarly parched. A green lawn would be equivalent to planting a notice declaring yourself to be a selfish SOB!
Click to expand...

Ouch. Looks like as your population grows, you will have to start cleaning waste water of build desalination plants.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, the average global surface temperature has been increasing
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
ttwtt78640 said:
and can be correlated with both increased world population
Click to expand...
You can't build a correlation using random numbers.
ttwtt78640 said:
and increased CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the CO2 emitted by man or nature.
ttwtt78640 said:
Many wish to ignore the former and laser focus on the latter.
Click to expand...
Who cares? CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.
ttwtt78640 said:
CO2 has increased over the last 100 years by about 33%
Click to expand...
33% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
ttwtt78640 said:
while the global popualtion has almost doubled (increased by nearly 100%) during that same time period.
Click to expand...
Which only shows that whatever the case, conditions are conducive to us as a species.
 
Surface Detail said:
Actual scientists disagree with you:
...deleted unrelated link to California wildfires...
Click to expand...
True Scotsman fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy.
Surface Detail said:
“When we look around the world at record hot events we find there’s already a human fingerprint at 80% of the events where we have observational records.”

— Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University climate scientist
Click to expand...
A great example of why climate 'scientists' deny science.

Observation is not part of science. It is not a proof. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is evidence only. Science does not use supporting evidence.
Surface Detail said:
“The reality is when it comes to heatwaves now there’s almost always a human fingerprint. One of the clearest consequences of global warming is more heat, higher temperatures.”

— Daniel Swain, climate scientist at UCLA
Click to expand...
Yet another example of a science denier. This one denies what 'heat' is and just assumes a 'human fingerprint' on any heatwave.

Climate 'scientists' are just priests in the Church of Global Warming. They deny science and mathematics, just like the rest of the Church of Global Warming does.
 
late said:
DARPA and secret Big Oil research both found AGW in the 70s. That hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

DARPA is a government agency, subject to government agenda.

Big Oil research is largely government funded.
 
humbolt said:
And we've found that AGW is not the force we might have thought since. Seems there are other factors in play that are perhaps more significant in determining the direction of the earth's climate.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
 
Into the Night said:
1) DARPA is a government agency, subject to government agenda.

Big Oil research is largely government funded.
Click to expand...

1) That and 5 bucks will get you a cup of lousy coffee at Starbucks. That was, at the time, cutting edge research, expensive, and time has shown it to be correct. IOW, you didn't actually say anything relevant.

2) That was secret research, not funded by the government. BTW, back then the government relied on oil company research. You got a source for funding?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Every scientific organization in the world subscribes to the AGW theory
Click to expand...
That is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. You MUST first define 'global warming' without using circular definitions before you can have any kind of theory about it. Until you do, the phrase 'global warming' is just a meaningless buzzword. You can't build a theory based on a void argument, scientific or otherwise.
Dittohead not! said:
. There are a few individuals,
Click to expand...
Science isn't by vote. Consensus is not used in science. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.
Dittohead not! said:
mostly not climatologists,
Click to expand...
Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They also deny statistical, probability, and random number mathematics.
Dittohead not! said:
who have a differing viewpoint, but most of the opposition is from bloggers.
Click to expand...
WRONG. You MUST either conform to these theories I have mentioned, or you must falsify them.
Dittohead not! said:
The thing is, there is no competing theory.
Click to expand...
I just mentioned them. AGW is not a theory of any kind, not even a nonscientific theory. It is based on a void argument due to the use of meaningless buzzwords as its primary object.
 
Visbek said:
Very few scientists agree with anything remotely like what you're saying.

There is broad recognition of the uncertainties. Climate scientists know there will be variability in the effects of climate change, and add allowances for processes we do not currently understand. Further, much of that uncertainty and variability is not about the physical effects, but what humans will do over the next century.

The models are also in the right ballpark. The 30th anniversary of Hansen's major 1998 paper just passed, and there was a lot of public review of his predictions. His biggest miss was that he overestimated the amounts of radiative forcing; when we adjust for that, and use the exact same model he used in 1998, the numbers are pretty much spot on. So we can say that Hansen's 1998 model is "flawed" -- and that we've fixed the primary flaw.

And of course, that is just one 30 year old model. Overall, the actual temperatures have been pretty much right up the middle of the range of different predictions.
Click to expand...

Scientists can't even agree on what the color 'red' means.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Ouch. Looks like as your population grows, you will have to start cleaning waste water of build desalination plants.
Click to expand...

The UK normally gets a lot of rain.They don't have a lot of reserve built into their system when a dry spell comes along.
 
late said:
1) That and 5 bucks will get you a cup of lousy coffee at Starbucks.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant statement.
late said:
That was, at the time, cutting edge research, expensive,
Click to expand...
No doubt. Irrelevant statement.
late said:
and time has shown it to be correct.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Time since the 'research' is irrelevant.
late said:
IOW, you didn't actually say anything relevant.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy.
late said:
2) That was secret research, not funded by the government.
Click to expand...
It was funded by the government and it was not secret research. It is public record.
late said:
BTW, back then the government relied on oil company research. You got a source for funding?
Click to expand...
Me? My own business. I am self funded. I do not rely on government funding.
 
Into the Night said:
Irrelevant statement.

No doubt. Irrelevant statement.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Time since the 'research' is irrelevant.

Inversion fallacy.

It was funded by the government and it was not secret research. It is public record.

Me? My own business. I am self funded. I do not rely on government funding.
Click to expand...

You are babbling.

The DARPA research was secret, that is what we, in real world, call a fact.

Your ego keep writing checks no one could cash, much less you.
 
late said:
You are babbling.

The DARPA research was secret, that is what we, in real world, call a fact.
Click to expand...
Only at the time the research was done. It is public record now. It is government funded, following government agenda. Strawman fallacy.
late said:
Your ego keep writing checks no one could cash, much less you.
Click to expand...
Psychobabble. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
Please state the theory that is being ignored here.
Click to expand...

I believe it's called anthropogenic global warming. It's a scientific theory, which those who don't understand the level of proof required for that designation are calling "just a theory" and attempting to disprove with links to blogs and other silliness.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I believe it's called anthropogenic global warming. It's a scientific theory, which those who don't understand the level of proof required for that designation are calling "just a theory" and attempting to disprove with links to blogs and other silliness.
Click to expand...

Svensmark and Shaviv publish their work in some of the most prestigious scientific journals.
 
Into the Night said:
That is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. You MUST first define 'global warming' without using circular definitions before you can have any kind of theory about it. Until you do, the phrase 'global warming' is just a meaningless buzzword. You can't build a theory based on a void argument, scientific or otherwise.

Science isn't by vote. Consensus is not used in science. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They also deny statistical, probability, and random number mathematics.

WRONG. You MUST either conform to these theories I have mentioned, or you must falsify them.

I just mentioned them. AGW is not a theory of any kind, not even a nonscientific theory. It is based on a void argument due to the use of meaningless buzzwords as its primary object.
Click to expand...

Why AGW is a scientific theory:

At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists—or even just one—supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did this happen?

An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called a “consilience of inductions.” For a theory to be accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction—or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction. “Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together,” he wrote in his 1840 book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, “belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains.” Call it a “convergence of evidence.”
Click to expand...

OK, ignore the above and keep on maintaining that the bloggers are right and the scientists are wrong.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good for them.

I have no idea who they are, and am not sure why you're bringing them up.
Click to expand...
He brings them up because they are practically the only two climate scientists who think that solar/cmb activity has a significant effect on global temperatures. Needless to say, they're AGW deniers.

He conveniently forgets to mention that they predicted the start of a period of global cooling in 2009. Ooops.

By the way, the IPCC reviewed their work, and were unpersuaded.

5th Report / Physical Science Basis
7.4.6.3 Synthesis
Correlations between cosmic ray flux and observed aerosol or cloud properties are weak and local at best, and do not prove to be robust on the regional or global scale. Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or droplets or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why AGW is a scientific theory:



OK, ignore the above and keep on maintaining that the bloggers are right and the scientists are wrong.
Click to expand...
Except that the "evidence" in the case of AGW, is that in the 20 years between 1978 and 1998,
the temperature rose faster than average. Beyond that the "evidence" is inferred, based on,
if the amount of warming in that period continues, these other things may happen.
Alternatively, the "evidence" is that every unusual weather event that happens, must be AGW.
The consensus from scientist (including skeptics) is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and that doubling it's level will cause a Top of the atmosphere energy imbalance of about 3.71 Wm-2,
This imbalance would "force" the temperature of the surface troposphere system to increase by about 1.1 C.
That is the scientific portion of the hypothesis known as AGW, it is not a real theory because it lacks falsifiability criteria.
https://explorable.com/falsifiability
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable.
Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments.
Click to expand...

All of this comes back to their not being about to find an alternative explanation, for the observed abnormal warming.
CO2 was selected, because the people like Hansen doing the selecting had already settled on CO2 being the cause.
Hansen was already writing about the CO2 bogyman in 1981, long before the temperature had trended out of the noise.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Is it really any surprise that Hansen goes before the Senate 7 years later to show how the data in the data set he keeps
supports his pet hypotheses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom