• 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!

99.9999% chance humans are causing global warming

calamity said:
That's a one in a million chance it might be something else. Let's see. That means the consensus being wrong is less likely than being struck by lightening underground while wearing rubber boots.

Happy Earth Day :)
Click to expand...

So where are the demonstrators outside the Chinese and Indian embassies throughout the world then given they contribute over half the worlds toxic emissions between them ?

Its all a load of anti captalist anti globalisation claptrap dressed up in 'virtue signalling' climate change greenwash. This is now a religion far removed from any kind of empirical science
 
Last edited:
Quick everyone...tear down every building in the U.S. then rebuild them with every gas guzzling piece of heavy machinery you can find!....we need to do this in less than 12 years!
 
joko104 said:
People who rant that humans are the cause of "climate change" are science deniers and play to the emotions of paranoid people who can't handle change.
Click to expand...

They forget that it is climate change that has allowed us to grow enough food to feed this many people. I am ready for an Ice Age and we can get rid of several billion people in the process. We have too many democrats and socialist people in this world anyway.
 
lol....keyboard scientists who think they know more than real scientists have flooded my thread, like melting glaciers.
 
longview said:
The source of the pre 1950 warming is not important, only that it exists.
That warming is a perturbation, and the feedbacks would respond to it.
any additional warming resulting from the feedbacks treatment of the perturbation,
would themselves be treated as a perturbation, and amplified.
Yes, it is a continuous process, but it has a finite period of equalization, this period or even part of it can
be evaluated as a cycle.
Much like the maximum cycle time can be known from a capacitor curve.
capacitor-charging-graph.jpg

Also,
External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings | Science
Click to expand...

Your link could not be read in it's entirety, without a membership. But the abstract had this to say.

Anthropogenic global warming under a standard emissions scenario is predicted to continue at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades.

Others have discussed the feedbacks of water vapor. However there are two other substantial POSITIVE feedbacks to global warming.

Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming

Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming | PNAS

The warming oceans could start to return more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the planet warms, according to new research.

Ocean warming speeds up cycle of climate change | Climate News Network

So you have chosen an article that states that AGW will continue at the current pace, which in itself is catastrophic. However, note that many scientists think feedbacks will be more consequential, and accelerate warming.
 
longview said:
The source of the pre 1950 warming is not important, only that it exists.
That warming is a perturbation, and the feedbacks would respond to it.
any additional warming resulting from the feedbacks treatment of the perturbation,
would themselves be treated as a perturbation, and amplified.
Yes, it is a continuous process, but it has a finite period of equalization, this period or even part of it can
be evaluated as a cycle.
Much like the maximum cycle time can be known from a capacitor curve.
capacitor-charging-graph.jpg

Also,
External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings | Science
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples with oranges. There is no positive feedback occurring in a capacitor charging curve, and the time constant is simply a quantification of the charging rate. There are no "cycles" occurring here either.

And if the source of the pre-1950 warming is unimportant, why mention it, let alone make an unsubstantiated claim about it?
 
Lord of Planar said:
And only part of the longwave changes are added heat to the oceans.

According to a NASA link, a 1 degree C increase in temperature adds 2 W/m^2 for H2O forcing. Now my numbers are very rough, but I calculated to do this, water vapor in the air needs to increase by quite a bit. If we assume a starting point of 2% average water vapor, we need to increase it to 2.25% to get that extra forcing. This is with a log extrapolation of assuming water in the air produces 168 W/m^2, and we increase it to 170 W/m^2.

Some one please double check my numbers. Tim... Maybe I'm making a methodology mistake...

Anyway assuming I am close...

That means average ocean evaporation is increased from 2.2 microns per to 2.75 microns per minute, or 0.55 CC/minute/square meter. The heat of evaporation for 0.55 CC of water is 1241 joules (watt-seconds) or ion the end, 20.7 watt per square meter.

This doesn't add up. I must have made a mistake someplace. This would indicate a SST cooling to evaporate than much more water. Not a warming.
Click to expand...

1, I think you are beyond my physics there.

2, I thought that the proportion of water vapor was roughly directly proportional to temperature in degrees c. At least for normal terrestrial temperatures.

3, 2 W/m2 will give an ECS of about +0.6c or so. So a +1c would then give you another +0.6c which would them add +0.36c etc. Sounds like that would give you a runaway warming. Venus here we come.

4. Given that 3 has never happened despite it being massively warmer in the past I think we can discount that.

Just thinking out loud...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, assuming my assumptions correct on post 35, I do see one mistake I made. Oceans only account for about 80% of the atmospheric water content. The other 20% elsewhere. This would change my 20.7 W/m^2 number to 16.6 W/m^2.
Click to expand...

It must be dazzling for them to see people who actually do thinking for themselves.
 
~ The nice thing is we don't have to worry. The same scientists that claim doom to mankind also admit there is nothing we can do to lower global Co2 enough to make any difference.
"Enjoy today for tomorrow may never come ."
25-emoji-subpoena.w1200.h630.jpg
 
can2man said:
Poor snow boarding.
Click to expand...

Yep, but extended summer walking tourist income.

The owners of Ski lodges are the only people I can think of who are at all likely to not want a slightly warmer world.
 
Media_Truth said:
Your link could not be read in it's entirety, without a membership. But the abstract had this to say.

Anthropogenic global warming under a standard emissions scenario is predicted to continue at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades.

Others have discussed the feedbacks of water vapor. However there are two other substantial POSITIVE feedbacks to global warming.

Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming

Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming | PNAS

The warming oceans could start to return more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the planet warms, according to new research.

Ocean warming speeds up cycle of climate change | Climate News Network

So you have chosen an article that states that AGW will continue at the current pace, which in itself is catastrophic. However, note that many scientists think feedbacks will be more consequential, and accelerate warming.
Click to expand...

The link was only to support the idea that others have stated that the warming in the first part of the 20th century
was of natural origins, and the quoted section stated that fairly clearly.
Various “detection and attribution” studies suggested that natural forcings may have contributed significantly to this early-century warming (3, 9,10, 13), but the warming has also been attributed to an unusually large instance of internal variability (2, 14).
Click to expand...
Of course the word significantly, does not contain a lot of finite meaning.
 
Surface Detail said:
You're comparing apples with oranges. There is no positive feedback occurring in a capacitor charging curve, and the time constant is simply a quantification of the charging rate. There are no "cycles" occurring here either.

And if the source of the pre-1950 warming is unimportant, why mention it, let alone make an unsubstantiated claim about it?
Click to expand...
The capacitor charging curve is almost the same type of curve as the feedback response,
and is broken down into time periods.
Based on all those model runs, the alarmist hold so dear, it looks like the 20 year interval is 68%.
response speed.jpg
If we know how fast the climate responds to perturbations, we can indeed establish a feedback cycle time.
Let me ask you a question, why would the feedbacks respond differently to the same type of input?
How would the feedbacks know that the input warming was from CO2 forcing vs feedback from earlier warming?
 
Surface Detail said:
Playing with numbers is not a substitute for thinking.
Click to expand...
At least playing with numbers requires more thinking than blindly accepting the words of others.
The Royal Society seems to have forgotten it's Motto.
Nullius in verba, take no ones word.
 
calamity said:
Yes, I will stick to visiting dentists to repair my teeth and seeing the eye doctors to examine my eyes. I'm snobbish like that. :roll:
Click to expand...

The issues under debate are statistical, not climatological.
 
calamity said:
I'm struggling to come up with a name for people who lay their future on the line for 1 in a 1,000,000 shots.

Ah, I know.

Lottery players.


AGW deniers are as dumb as those who play the lottery.
Click to expand...

AGW acclaimers state there is an imminent disaster due to climate change yet wish to monitor less than 5% of all greenhouse gases. That and no 'green deal' that monitors the one greenhouse gas - CO2 - demands countries like China, Russia and India participate in the deal. Either environmental scientists don't think there is an imminent disaster due to climate change or they have a different goal than cooling the earth.

You know, at one time, scientists thought the earth was flat as well as some mysterious gas called ether carried light which Einstein debunked with his theories of relativity. Both were considered 'decided science'.
 
cabse5 said:
AGW acclaimers state there is an imminent disaster due to climate change yet wish to monitor less than 5% of all greenhouse gases. That and no 'green deal' that monitors the one greenhouse gas - CO2 - demands countries like China, Russia and India participate in the deal. Either environmental scientists don't think there is an imminent disaster due to climate change or they have a different goal than cooling the earth.

You know, at one time, scientists thought the earth was flat as well as some mysterious gas called ether carried light which Einstein debunked with his theories of relativity. Both were considered 'decided science'.
Click to expand...

12 years ago....we only had 12 years.

Go figure.
 
longview said:
The capacitor charging curve is almost the same type of curve as the feedback response,
and is broken down into time periods.
Based on all those model runs, the alarmist hold so dear, it looks like the 20 year interval is 68%.
View attachment 67255722
If we know how fast the climate responds to perturbations, we can indeed establish a feedback cycle time.
Let me ask you a question, why would the feedbacks respond differently to the same type of input?
How would the feedbacks know that the input warming was from CO2 forcing vs feedback from earlier warming?
Click to expand...

Now you've lost it completely. The capacitor charging curve looks nothing like the response of the Earth's temperature to the CO2 forcing over the past century or so. And there's no reason why it should do, given that they represent completely different situations! You are making no sense at all.
 
cabse5 said:
You know, at one time, scientists thought the earth was flat as well as some mysterious gas called ether carried light which Einstein debunked with his theories of relativity. Both were considered 'decided science'.
Click to expand...

This is bull****. People have known that the Earth isn't flat since classical times, and the luminiferous ether was never considered to be "decided science". Although it was posited as a medium for carrying light, nobody was sure of its existence and no evidence of it was found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom