• 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!

Big Freeze and Climate Change- Stupidity or cynicism?

bubbabgone said:
Yes.
Climate change is more accurate.
Click to expand...
No, it's that "climate change" is broader. If we are talking exclusively about temperatures during the present era, then "global warming" is still a useful term.


And yes, climate has always changed.
Click to expand...
Yes, it has. That fact alone, however, does not disprove AGW.


But no, no one has explained why rising CO2 during the industrial age could cause warming for hundreds of years prior, or can cause decades long cooling during the industrial age.
Click to expand...
Denier says what now?

Global temperatures were cooling, not warming, in the centuries before the Industrial Era (which starts in 1750). We don't know exactly what caused or ended the LIA, and it's a safe bet that some of its end was due to natural causes. However, there is no scientific reason to doubt that human activity quickly overwhelmed any natural impacts by, say, 1850; and that most of the warming since then is due to human activities.

1024px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



And no, there weren't "decades of cooling" during the Industrial Era. The trend is up, and in tandem with CO2 levels (along with other GHGs, not included in the chart).

CO2-Temp.jpg
 
Visbek said:
"Climate change" is more accurate, because over millions of years the climate changes in a variety of ways.

However, "global warming" is still happening. And yes, one of the impacts is more extreme weather, which can include a cold snap in about 1% of the world's surface.



Ermm... Climate scientists have explained, for years, why CO2 has overwhelmed "nature" as the driver of climate change during the Industrial era. They've also shown how in the past, natural increases in CO2 (which were much, much smaller and more gradual) caused warming.

I'm quite confident by now that people have cited the evidence to you, over and over again. Your refusal to accept facts does not mean that the facts do not exist.
Click to expand...

I understand the evidence. It's anecdotal. Your refusal to admit that indicates that you are likely the one in denial.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs
I know.

It’s a flabbergastingly stupid question.

humbolt said:
well then, you're well qualified to answer it.
Click to expand...

**mic drop**
 

Attachments

  • muttley-laugh.jpg
    muttley-laugh.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 62
Visbek said:
No, it's that "climate change" is broader. If we are talking exclusively about temperatures during the present era, then "global warming" is still a useful term.



Yes, it has. That fact alone, however, does not disprove AGW.



Denier says what now?

Global temperatures were cooling, not warming, in the centuries before the Industrial Era (which starts in 1750). We don't know exactly what caused or ended the LIA, and it's a safe bet that some of its end was due to natural causes. However, there is no scientific reason to doubt that human activity quickly overwhelmed any natural impacts by, say, 1850; and that most of the warming since then is due to human activities.

1024px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



And no, there weren't "decades of cooling" during the Industrial Era. The trend is up, and in tandem with CO2 levels (along with other GHGs, not included in the chart).

View attachment 67249730
Click to expand...

Random numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
I have been labeled a "denier" ; what do we call someone who denies the sun, denies change, believes current climate is optimal or believes or rather has faith that science by consensus should not be questioned.

I have some choice words but have at it.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Eriech said:
I have been labeled a "denier" ; what do we call someone who denies the sun, denies change, believes current climate is optimal or believes or rather has faith that science by consensus should not be questioned.

I have some choice words but have at it.
Click to expand...

If you question the gospels of the new secular religion of global warming you are a 'denier' . Be proud of your heresy just like all free thinking individuals should be in this instance :wink:
 
humbolt said:
I understand the evidence. It's anecdotal. Your refusal to admit that indicates that you are likely the one in denial.
Click to expand...
zomg... the irony... it's killing me... lol

Actual empirical measurements of global surface, atmospheric and ocean temperatures, along with sea levels, glacier and ice mass measurements, CO2 concentrations, CH4 concentrations, changes to permafrost, measurements of ozone and water vapor, measurements of the properties of hurricanes and storms surges (to name but a few), many of which go back decades and/or centuries and/or millennia and in some cases even eons, are not "anecdotes."

Last year's heat waves, for example, was not an "anecdote." It was an objectively observable phenomenon. We know that it covered a significant portion of the planet (unlike the polar vortex, which covers a relatively small area). We know that it was larger and more intense than a typical heat wave. We know that extreme heat events are happening more frequently.

In contrast, the flawed anecdotal thinking belongs to the AGW deniers. Surely the denier's complaint will found familiar: "Wow, it is really cold today, therefore global warming is not real!"
 
flogger said:
If you question the gospels of the new secular religion of global warming you are a 'denier' . Be proud of your heresy just like all free thinking individuals should be in this instance :wink:
Click to expand...
Yes, just like those "free thinkers" who believe that cigarettes are harmless, that the Earth is flat, that man never visited the Moon, that perpetual motion machines can be real....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is making my point (very long term trends must be observed) - what caused the observed global cooling between 1880 and 1920 and "flattened" global warming between 1940 and 1960? I seriously doubt that it was decreased use of carbon based energy or a drop in the number of people on the planet using those 'dirty' energy sources - yet something changing was (certainly?) responsible.
Click to expand...

Chaotic systems behave chaotically.

It’s odd you say you want to see long term trends and then focus on a bunch of short term ones.

But there is long term data, of course. And it shows that the speed of the change (which is the main issue), is unprecedented.

25caded990c1374238acf9810ed27fb3.jpg
 
Visbek said:
Yes, just like those "free thinkers" who believe that cigarettes are harmless, that the Earth is flat, that man never visited the Moon, that perpetual motion machines can be real....
Click to expand...

No nothing like those. Just those free thinking people who choose to question dogma and require proof. Our climate is doing just fine in the context of post glacial millenia
 
humbolt said:
I gotta go back a couple of years and find one of those IPCC summaries. The language was priceless.
Click to expand...

Odd.

I linked it for you just yesterday.

You seemed completely unfamiliar. Didn’t even know they reviewed the science.
 
Fletch said:
Then what is the objective and how do you propose to achieve it?
Click to expand...

I'll do this again for you, but big:

The objective is to minimize human impact on climate so nature can take its course.

We don't understand the dials well enough to **** with them.
 
flogger said:
No nothing like those. Just those free thinking people who choose to question dogma and require proof. Our climate is doing just fine in the context of post glacial millenia
Click to expand...
...except that the proof is all saying that humans are having huge impacts on the environment, and things are not doing just fine in recent years -- as evidenced by more extreme weather events; hurricanes that are larger, more intense, travel slower, and produce larger storm surges; larger and more intense heat waves; loss of glacial and other ice mass; loss of fresh water; rapid rise in sea levels; increased acidification of oceans; massive loss of coral reefs; rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere; rapid increase in global temperatures; more intense storms, that in turn are more likely to cause major floods; permafrost that has locked up carbon for millennia, which is just starting to melt... The list goes on.

And yes, that includes some cold-weather events affecting small portions of the globe -- the US is, after all, only about 2% of the surface of the planet. (E.g. most Americans have no idea that right now, Australia is experiencing a heat wave that is shattering temperature records.)

I.e. this is your idea of "just fine:"

boiled-frog.png


And yes, what you're doing is denying the science. That is exactly like denying that tobacco is harmful or the Earth is round. A refusal to actually think does not make one a "free thinker."
 
Visbek said:
...except that the proof is all saying that humans are having huge impacts on the environment, and things are not doing just fine in recent years -- as evidenced by more extreme weather events; hurricanes that are larger, more intense, travel slower, and produce larger storm surges; larger and more intense heat waves; loss of glacial and other ice mass; loss of fresh water; rapid rise in sea levels; increased acidification of oceans; massive loss of coral reefs; rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere; rapid increase in global temperatures; more intense storms, that in turn are more likely to cause major floods; permafrost that has locked up carbon for millennia, which is just starting to melt... The list goes on.

And yes, that includes some cold-weather events affecting small portions of the globe -- the US is, after all, only about 2% of the surface of the planet. (E.g. most Americans have no idea that right now, Australia is experiencing a heat wave that is shattering temperature records.)

I.e. this is your idea of "just fine:"

boiled-frog.png


And yes, what you're doing is denying the science. That is exactly like denying that tobacco is harmful or the Earth is round. A refusal to actually think does not make one a "free thinker."
Click to expand...

My idea of 'just fine' is our current temperatures being well within the the range of the natural variability of the last few thousand years in both its level and rate of change. All the rest isn't any kind of empirical science at all its just political agenda driven bunk. By all means lets throw the billions being squandered on this nonsense at the very real damage mankind is doing to the environment like acid rain, oceanic pollution etc etc

dT6KN7u.jpg
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
zomg... the irony... it's killing me... lol

Actual empirical measurements of global surface, atmospheric and ocean temperatures, along with sea levels, glacier and ice mass measurements, CO2 concentrations, CH4 concentrations, changes to permafrost, measurements of ozone and water vapor, measurements of the properties of hurricanes and storms surges (to name but a few), many of which go back decades and/or centuries and/or millennia and in some cases even eons, are not "anecdotes."

Last year's heat waves, for example, was not an "anecdote." It was an objectively observable phenomenon. We know that it covered a significant portion of the planet (unlike the polar vortex, which covers a relatively small area). We know that it was larger and more intense than a typical heat wave. We know that extreme heat events are happening more frequently.

In contrast, the flawed anecdotal thinking belongs to the AGW deniers. Surely the denier's complaint will found familiar: "Wow, it is really cold today, therefore global warming is not real!"
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
Odd.

I linked it for you just yesterday.

You seemed completely unfamiliar. Didn’t even know they reviewed the science.
Click to expand...

The paragraph I'm looking for is not in that particular summary. I'll find it when I take the time.
 
Visbek said:
zomg... the irony... it's killing me... lol

Actual empirical measurements of global surface, atmospheric and ocean temperatures, along with sea levels, glacier and ice mass measurements, CO2 concentrations, CH4 concentrations, changes to permafrost, measurements of ozone and water vapor, measurements of the properties of hurricanes and storms surges (to name but a few), many of which go back decades and/or centuries and/or millennia and in some cases even eons, are not "anecdotes."

Last year's heat waves, for example, was not an "anecdote." It was an objectively observable phenomenon. We know that it covered a significant portion of the planet (unlike the polar vortex, which covers a relatively small area). We know that it was larger and more intense than a typical heat wave. We know that extreme heat events are happening more frequently.

In contrast, the flawed anecdotal thinking belongs to the AGW deniers. Surely the denier's complaint will found familiar: "Wow, it is really cold today, therefore global warming is not real!"
Click to expand...

AGW is a classic example of correlation assuming a cause. Such things must be proven, and we currently lack sufficient knowledge of climate to do so. All of the arrogance on display here from AGW proponents doesn't alter the factual data and lack of a sufficient proof.
 
Visbek said:
No, it's that "climate change" is broader. If we are talking exclusively about temperatures during the present era, then "global warming" is still a useful term.



Yes, it has. That fact alone, however, does not disprove AGW.



Denier says what now?

Global temperatures were cooling, not warming, in the centuries before the Industrial Era (which starts in 1750). We don't know exactly what caused or ended the LIA, and it's a safe bet that some of its end was due to natural causes. However, there is no scientific reason to doubt that human activity quickly overwhelmed any natural impacts by, say, 1850; and that most of the warming since then is due to human activities.

1024px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



And no, there weren't "decades of cooling" during the Industrial Era. The trend is up, and in tandem with CO2 levels (along with other GHGs, not included in the chart).

View attachment 67249730
Click to expand...

We're around 400 PPM CO2 these days. Have you any idea what the CO2 level was during past Ice Ages?

Your own graph shows a pause between 1950 and 1975. Was there a CO2 pause during those 2.5 decades? (there were other pauses including one that started around 2000).

CO2 is a minor player, not a driver.
If you think about it even a little bit it should be obvious that the sun and earth with their behavior in cycles within cycles and the influence on climate that cyclical behavior causes on earth is the driver.
The climate system is one of chaos. Too complex to be driven by something as conveniently simple as one greenhouse gas.

'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,'
'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'
James Lovelock
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html
​
 
I'm looking for proof that CO2 is the driver of climate that some claim - a reasonable request.​
Threegoofs said:
IPCC ? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Click to expand...

I looked for a good illustration of bible thumping. I thought it would be easy to find.
We all know what that looks like, some true believer shoves the "Good Book" in your
face, telling you that's where we can find the answer all the while thumping it.

Well anyway, Threegoofs is essentially a bible thumper.
 
Visbek said:
...except that the proof is all saying that humans are having huge impacts on the environment, and things are not doing just fine in recent years -- as evidenced by more extreme weather events; hurricanes that are larger, more intense, travel slower, and produce larger storm surges; larger and more intense heat waves; loss of glacial and other ice mass; loss of fresh water; rapid rise in sea levels; increased acidification of oceans; massive loss of coral reefs; rapid increase in CO2, CH4 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere; rapid increase in global temperatures; more intense storms, that in turn are more likely to cause major floods; permafrost that has locked up carbon for millennia, which is just starting to melt... The list goes on.

And yes, that includes some cold-weather events affecting small portions of the globe -- the US is, after all, only about 2% of the surface of the planet. (E.g. most Americans have no idea that right now, Australia is experiencing a heat wave that is shattering temperature records.)

I.e. this is your idea of "just fine:"

boiled-frog.png




And yes, what you're doing is denying the science. That is exactly like denying that tobacco is harmful or the Earth is round. A refusal to actually think does not make one a "free thinker."
Click to expand...

My such a long list for being false. Where did you hear it? Don't be so susceptible to such gobbledegook without verification. Is that what "free thinker" means to you?
For example ...
"Recent papers (Vecchi and Knutson 2008; Landsea et al 2010; Vecchi and Knutson 2011.; Villarini et al. 2011) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database (HURDAT) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring."


Simplified_TSER_fiveyr_small.gif
 
Steve Case said:
I'm looking for proof that CO2 is the driver of climate that some claim - a reasonable request.​


I looked for a good illustration of bible thumping. I thought it would be easy to find.
We all know what that looks like, some true believer shoves the "Good Book" in your
face, telling you that's where we can find the answer all the while thumping it.

Well anyway, Threegoofs is essentially a bible thumper.
Click to expand...

You might have recognized by now that he posts links to things he's never read and wouldn't understand if he did.
 
bubbabgone said:
We're around 400 PPM CO2 these days. Have you any idea what the CO2 level was during past Ice Ages?

Your own graph shows a pause between 1950 and 1975. Was there a CO2 pause during those 2.5 decades? (there were other pauses including one that started around 2000).

CO2 is a minor player, not a driver.
If you think about it even a little bit it should be obvious that the sun and earth with their behavior in cycles within cycles and the influence on climate that cyclical behavior causes on earth is the driver.
The climate system is one of chaos. Too complex to be driven by something as conveniently simple as one greenhouse gas.

'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,'
'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'
James Lovelock
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html
​
Click to expand...

Lovelock - clearly apostate. A little scourging will change his tune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom