• 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!

Trump and AGW

Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

What's his name, and that is one. Not more than one as indicated in the plural sense.
Click to expand...

How many names do you need. How about the names of the heads of over a dozen national academies of science? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
Here is my thesis as laid out in the op.

Many people said that the only reason all the science agencies in the US (and the world actually) believed in AGW was because of Obama. Once someone got in power that did not believe in AGW then the real truth would come out. Trump in power and the GOP controls congress. You have run out of excuses. The giant conpiracy theory has failed. This is the science talking.

You have no more excuses
Click to expand...
I have no idea who thought science agencies believed in AGW because of Obama,
They toed the AGW line, and still do because AGW is a cash cow for many of their members.
The science is talking, and it says that consensus is the antithesis of science,
that real science is moved forward by rigorous debate, and elimination of failed hypothesis.
FYI it is not that AGW is not real, and that is not what people (including scientist) are skeptical about.
What people are skeptical about are the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC, which require
a high level of amplified feedbacks.
 
longview said:
I have no idea who thought science agencies believed in AGW because of Obama,
They toed the AGW line, and still do because AGW is a cash cow for many of their members.
The science is talking, and it says that consensus is the antithesis of science,
that real science is moved forward by rigorous debate, and elimination of failed hypothesis.
FYI it is not that AGW is not real, and that is not what people (including scientist) are skeptical about.
What people are skeptical about are the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC, which require
a high level of amplified feedbacks.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. You lukewarmers just have no credibility. Sorry
 
Linc said:
‘Snowball’ Inhofe from Oklahoma showed his true colors on Sen. McCain.

Senators Graham and McCain most certainly believe in Climate Change.

Just ask ‘LOUISIANA SINKING’.
Click to expand...

Louisiana is sinking, but not because of AGW and CO2, but because of changes made to the Mississippi.
Altering the river, meant the marshes were not replenished with silt.
Without new silt, the entire delta will return to the Gulf of Mexico eventually.
 
Linc said:
‘Snowball’ Inhofe from Oklahoma showed his true colors on Sen. McCain.

Senators Graham and McCain most certainly believe in Climate Change.

Just ask ‘LOUISIANA SINKING’.
Click to expand...

Here the clip is in context:

Start at 1:30:45, and watch at least until until 1:43.
 
vegas giants said:
How many names do you need. How about the names of the heads of over a dozen national academies of science? LOL
Click to expand...

Do you have their exact names, or just a statement made by some unnamed head, who is now in a political type position?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do you have their exact names, or just a statement made by some unnamed head, who is now in a political type position?
Click to expand...

No I have their exact names. And their signatures too. How many national academy scientists names do you have? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
Yep. Me and every science agency on the planet. I love saying that. LOL
Click to expand...

Really?

A recent example has scientists who are members of one of those society saying they were never asked if they agreed or not.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really?

A recent example has scientists who are members of one of those society saying they were never asked if they agreed or not.
Click to expand...

Then give me the list of all the names of those that disagreed.
 
vegas giants said:
I'm sorry. You lukewarmers just have no credibility. Sorry
Click to expand...
I can only go where the data leads.
Think how much amplified feedback is required to make the
1.1 C of 2XCO2 forced warming to become the 3 C of projections?
The formula is simple, output divided by input 3/1.1=2.72.
Now look at how that 2.72 factor works using the GISS's numbers and Hansen's latency of 37.5 years for ECS.
Within the GISS data we have .2 C of warming that occurred before 1940, that is two of Hansen's cycles ago.
So cycle 1: .2 X 2.72= .544 C, cycle 2: .544 X 2.72= 1.47 C.
Now since we have not warmed by 1.47 C since 1940, we can rule out the 2.72 feedback factor (and the 3 C where it came from) as possible.
What do we really have to work with?
1_FigSPM-05.jpg

It turns out not much!
If we subtract the 1950 forcing from the 2011 forcing, we get 1.72 Wm-2 or .516 C from forcing.
The decade average difference between the GISS 1950 to 2011 is .602 C
So the total unknown possible, including the amplified feedbacks from the aforementioned .2 C pre 1940 warming,
is less than .086 C. Even if all of the unknown were from amplified feedbacks, they still would not amount to much.
 
longview said:
I can only go where the data leads.
Think how much amplified feedback is required to make the
1.1 C of 2XCO2 forced warming to become the 3 C of projections?
The formula is simple, output divided by input 3/1.1=2.72.
Now look at how that 2.72 factor works using the GISS's numbers and Hansen's latency of 37.5 years for ECS.
Within the GISS data we have .2 C of warming that occurred before 1940, that is two of Hansen's cycles ago.
So cycle 1: .2 X 2.72= .544 C, cycle 2: .544 X 2.72= 1.47 C.
Now since we have not warmed by 1.47 C since 1940, we can rule out the 2.72 feedback factor (and the 3 C where it came from) as possible.
What do we really have to work with?
1_FigSPM-05.jpg

It turns out not much!
If we subtract the 1950 forcing from the 2011 forcing, we get 1.72 Wm-2 or .516 C from forcing.
The decade average difference between the GISS 1950 to 2011 is .602 C
So the total unknown possible, including the amplified feedbacks from the aforementioned .2 C pre 1940 warming,
is less than .086 C. Even if all of the unknown were from amplified feedbacks, they still would not amount to much.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. How does that contradict my thesis?
 
vegas giants said:
Fascinating. How does that contradict my thesis?
Click to expand...
In every way possible! The amplified feedback are absolutely necessary for the IPCC's flavor of AGW
to be of any concern, they are the basis of the 1.5 to 4.5 C range, without which 2XCO2 would
only amount to roughly 1.1 C of warming spread over 180 years.
The guy who first said CO2 was a greenhouse gas (technically he used the word hot house),
Tyndail, was not concerned, as Arrhenius said,
Tyndail in particular has pointed out the enormous importance of this question.
To him it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variations of the temperature that were
lessoned by the circumstance.
Click to expand...
I.E. he predicted exactly what we are seeing, warmer evenings and winters, while the max
temperatures hardly increase.
 
longview said:
In every way possible! The amplified feedback are absolutely necessary for the IPCC's flavor of AGW
to be of any concern, they are the basis of the 1.5 to 4.5 C range, without which 2XCO2 would
only amount to roughly 1.1 C of warming spread over 180 years.
The guy who first said CO2 was a greenhouse gas (technically he used the word hot house),
Tyndail, was not concerned, as Arrhenius said,

I.E. he predicted exactly what we are seeing, warmer evenings and winters, while the max
temperatures hardly increase.
Click to expand...

Again how does that contradict with my thesis
 
longview said:
Do you know what they are all in consensus about?
It is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, nothing more.
If you want to see some of this consensus in action, look at the comments
from actual scientist on the The Geological Society of London’s Statement on Climate Change.
The Geological Society of London’s Statement on Climate Change | Energy Matters
Click to expand...

Are you delusional or are you just lying?

You’ve been shown repeatedly, and we have spoon fed you this too, that these organizations have explicitly stated that CO2 is not ‘nothing more than a greenhouse gas’, but that there is significant concern that immmediate action needs to be taken to address global warming due to CO2 levels.

I mean.. if you’re not lying, you seriously need to reflect deeply on if your cognitive ability has declined recently. I”m concerned, since we’ve been over this again and again and again and again.
 
vegas giants said:
I did already. I am not repeating myself
Click to expand...
I see the foolishness you are talking about,
Many people said that the only reason all the science agencies in the US (and the world actually) believed in AGW was because of Obama. Once someone got in power that did not believe in AGW then the real truth would come out. Trump in power and the GOP controls congress. You have run out of excuses. The giant conpiracy theory has failed. This is the science talking.
Click to expand...
That is not a scientific thesis, but a flawed political one.
The people who are invested in AGW will continue to claim it is real as long as the funding lasts,
and that looks to be at least until 2020, when the Obama appointed head of the NSF's 6 year term expires.
 
Threegoofs said:
Are you delusional or are you just lying?

You’ve been shown repeatedly, and we have spoon fed you this too, that these organizations have explicitly stated that CO2 is not ‘nothing more than a greenhouse gas’, but that there is significant concern that immmediate action needs to be taken to address global warming due to CO2 levels.

I mean.. if you’re not lying, you seriously need to reflect deeply on if your cognitive ability has declined recently. I”m concerned, since we’ve been over this again and again and again and again.
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly shown that you cannot understand the science related to AGW,
So your not understanding that forcing alone can satisfy the bulk of the consensus statements,
is likely also out of your reach.
What do they teach is colleges of Pharmacology?
 
longview said:
I see the foolishness you are talking about,

That is not a scientific thesis, but a flawed political one.
The people who are invested in AGW will continue to claim it is real as long as the funding lasts,
and that looks to be at least until 2020, when the Obama appointed head of the NSF's 6 year term expires.
Click to expand...
You understand that the funding now comes from the GOP congress, Trump and that NASA is led by a previous AGW denier.

Your theory falls flat on the face of this evidence
 
vegas giants said:
You understand that the funding now comes from the GOP congress, Trump and that NASA is led by a previous AGW denier.

Your theory falls flat on the face of this evidence
Click to expand...
My theory is simply that the climates sensitivity to added CO2 is at the low end of the scale,
based on the observable data, nothing more, nothing less.
That other will stretch their findings to appear to toe the AGW line is of no consequence,
in the end the data will win.
 
longview said:
My theory is simply that the climates sensitivity to added CO2 is at the low end of the scale,
based on the observable data, nothing more, nothing less.
That other will stretch their findings to appear to toe the AGW line is of no consequence,
in the end the data will win.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion but you have not in any way addressed my thesis.
 
vegas giants said:
Thank you for your opinion but you have not in any way addressed my thesis.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice anything that counts as a thesis either. Are you delusional, or did we miss something. Please show us what we missed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom