• 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!

All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees

Gary said:
Wiki has a few things wrong, but that happens and it has footnotes. It's usually general knowledge and easily available. The things I've found wrong are minor mistakes, like a wrong picture of an aircraft being described. Deniers don't like wiki because even general knowledge shoots done their nonsense.

There is a wiki article on the IPCC findings for LIA and MWP. I remember the first report having the Lamb drawing.

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

It's been the same old things for years with those past climate periods and the debate has always been the same, with deniers pulling the same cherry picking tactics to try to prove climate variability. In fact, every method to muddy the waters and prevent a scientific approach to examining climate change has been done. There exists and has existed a cottage industry of pseudo-science propaganda since the days when scientists reported why it became hot and remained hot in the Reagan administration.

Do you bother reading the IPCC reports? They aren't hard to get and they tell you how they address forcing in detail? The concepts aren't new, they've been in college textbooks for well over 50 years, well beyond the time of climate warming concerns. People have been studying every aspect you can think of involving why is this thing on Earth for longer than the present population has been alive.
Click to expand...

Yeah it has footnotes. That's how I knew they used Cook and Orsekes for their conclusion about 97%.
Were you aware of the methodology of those surveys? Should you have been curious about that?
What Wiki didn't do is include footnotes that expose how Cook and Orsekes arrived at their conclusion.
That's not a minor mistake is it.

Identifying, for example, the MWP, LIA, warming pauses, sunspots and sun's magnetic field, and lack of correlation between warming and CO2 ... those are not cherry picked tactics.
Calling them cherry picked tactics is an example of a cherry picking tactic.


Do I read the IPCC reports?
Why do you think I keep asking you if you knew how the IPCC described their approach to including forcings other than CO2 in the models they use.
I want to see if you ever read anything in them too.
Since you never answered what I asked can we assume you never have?
You never will address the question directly, will you.
You appear to be content to depend on the publicly edited Wikipedia platform.
Not a good plan.
Without checking with Wikipedia, how much do you know about the IPCC and how they operate?
 
bubbabgone said:
Yeah it has footnotes. That's how I knew they used Cook and Orsekes for their conclusion about 97%.
Were you aware of the methodology of those surveys? Should you have been curious about that?
What Wiki didn't do is include footnotes that expose how Cook and Orsekes arrived at their conclusion.
That's not a minor mistake is it.

Identifying, for example, the MWP, LIA, warming pauses, sunspots and sun's magnetic field, and lack of correlation between warming and CO2 ... those are not cherry picked tactics.
Calling them cherry picked tactics is an example of a cherry picking tactic.


Do I read the IPCC reports?
Why do you think I keep asking you if you knew how the IPCC described their approach to including forcings other than CO2 in the models they use.
I want to see if you ever read anything in them too.
Since you never answered what I asked can we assume you never have?
You never will address the question directly, will you.
You appear to be content to depend on the publicly edited Wikipedia platform.
Not a good plan.
Without checking with Wikipedia, how much do you know about the IPCC and how they operate?
Click to expand...

Is it hard to post what the IPCC says and has said from the beginning? If you dispute their findings, prove yourself. There have been five reports and they aren't hard to find. You like to beat around the bush and avoid things. It's your job to prove yourself and I don't have a damned thing to do with it.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't care whether you see it. I prefer informed interlocutors.
Click to expand...

That really makes sense, like you can know who you are talking to on the internet and know their background. You just can't realize, you don't know chit.
 
Gary said:
That really makes sense, like you can know who you are talking to on the internet and know their background. You just can't realize, you don't know chit.
Click to expand...

I judge by the quality (or lack thereof) of posts.
 
Jack Hays said:
I judge by the quality (or lack thereof) of posts.
Click to expand...

There is no quality in denying global warming by claiming previous events not scientifically proven exist. An attempt to do so reeks of bias and no scientific analysis can be done with bias, it has to be done in a comprehensive manner. It has been done scientifically and you just don't like the results. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out you can hand pick studies to "prove" the wrong conclusions.

Why should I post things that have already been posted and rejected by deniers? Find them yourself, you buried them with nonsense!
 
Gary said:
There is no quality in denying global warming by claiming previous events not scientifically proven exist. An attempt to do so reeks of bias and no scientific analysis can be done with bias, it has to be done in a comprehensive manner. It has been done scientifically and you just don't like the results. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out you can hand pick studies to "prove" the wrong conclusions.

Why should I post things that have already been posted and rejected by deniers? Find them yourself, you buried them with nonsense!
Click to expand...

Goodbye, and good luck.
 
Gary said:
There is no quality in denying global warming by claiming previous events not scientifically proven exist. An attempt to do so reeks of bias and no scientific analysis can be done with bias, it has to be done in a comprehensive manner. It has been done scientifically and you just don't like the results. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out you can hand pick studies to "prove" the wrong conclusions.

Why should I post things that have already been posted and rejected by deniers? Find them yourself, you buried them with nonsense!
Click to expand...

If no scientific analysis can be done with bias, then you will have to dismiss anything ever written by the IPCC!
The reality is that, YES AGW is real, but the data only supports low climate sensitivity to added CO2.
 
longview said:
If no scientific analysis can be done with bias, then you will have to dismiss anything ever written by the IPCC!
The reality is that, YES AGW is real, but the data only supports low climate sensitivity to added CO2.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense, scientific analysis has to be done without bias or it's not scientific. You are biased and reject scientific analysis that isn't. You want to cook the books and a scientist doesn't.

The reality is that CO2 gets much higher in the atmosphere than water does and you completely don't understand the significance that has in trapping heat. Study after study of CO2 varying with glacial and interglacial periods shows nothing to you. Why wouldn't you consider CO2 a proxy for global temperature, if it isn't what is a better one?
 
Gary said:
That is nonsense, scientific analysis has to be done without bias or it's not scientific. You are biased and reject scientific analysis that isn't. You want to cook the books and a scientist doesn't.

The reality is that CO2 gets much higher in the atmosphere than water does and you completely don't understand the significance that has in trapping heat. Study after study of CO2 varying with glacial and interglacial periods shows nothing to you. Why wouldn't you consider CO2 a proxy for global temperature, if it isn't what is a better one?
Click to expand...
The IPCC starts from the position that AGW is very real, That is a bias!
I do not really have a bias, I look at the data.
The data says that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something is not working like it is expected.
The expectation is that 2XCO2 would create an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, but one of the few empirical observations,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
came out to a 2XCO2 number of about 2.52 Wm-2.
based on .22 Wm-2/ln(392/369)=3.638, 3.638 X ln(2)=2.52 Wm-2.
Imagine the systematic errors is the computer models hard coded in the expectation of the 2XCO2
causing a 3.71 Wm-2 imbalance, when in reality it only caused a 2.52 Wm-2 imbalance?
It might even make the models run hot!
 
longview said:
The IPCC starts from the position that AGW is very real, That is a bias!
I do not really have a bias, I look at the data.
The data says that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something is not working like it is expected.
The expectation is that 2XCO2 would create an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, but one of the few empirical observations,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
came out to a 2XCO2 number of about 2.52 Wm-2.
based on .22 Wm-2/ln(392/369)=3.638, 3.638 X ln(2)=2.52 Wm-2.
Imagine the systematic errors is the computer models hard coded in the expectation of the 2XCO2
causing a 3.71 Wm-2 imbalance, when in reality it only caused a 2.52 Wm-2 imbalance?
It might even make the models run hot!
Click to expand...

The IPCC started by governments asking scientist to tell them why it got hot and stayed hot and eventually the US spearheaded such research, way back in the Reagan administration. Eventually was many years later when what was considered a fluke didn't return to normal. Their conclusions are supported by scientists and aren't biased. Why would that be?

CO2's role was discovered long before climate concerns and taught in colleges. So was the role of sulfates in the atmosphere and many other things. What you call bias is science, because you don't have a clue what science is.
 
Gary said:
The IPCC started by governments asking scientist to tell them why it got hot and stayed hot and eventually the US spearheaded such research, way back in the Reagan administration. Eventually was many years later when what was considered a fluke didn't return to normal. Their conclusions are supported by scientists and aren't biased. Why would that be?

CO2's role was discovered long before climate concerns and taught in colleges. So was the role of sulfates in the atmosphere and many other things. What you call bias is science, because you don't have a clue what science is.
Click to expand...
Um! here is the IPCC basic charter,
About — IPCC
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.
Click to expand...
The IPCC presupposes that not only does AGW exists but it is a problem that demands a government solution.
If the research found that CO2 while still being a greenhouse gas, posed no concern,
the IPCC would not a reason to exists.
The role of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere goes back to Tyndail in the nineteenth century.
( Who was not too concerned with CO2, since it mostly affected minimum temperatures.)
Actually qualifying the effects of added CO2, has been done only on a very limited empirical sense ,
with most of the studies being models, using assumptions from earlier models.
The role of aerosols is also less than clear, we really do not have good estimates of how much solar insolation
has increased since the 1970's, and that would be a kind of important number to know.
It is not bias (opinions ) if it is simply a flawed assumption.
Using that assumption, while knowing it is incorrect, that would be bias.
 
Gary said:
Is it hard to post what the IPCC says and has said from the beginning? If you dispute their findings, prove yourself. There have been five reports and they aren't hard to find. You like to beat around the bush and avoid things. It's your job to prove yourself and I don't have a damned thing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not beating around the bush.
I'm trying to find out how much you know so I know what to address.
So far, you've come up empty.
Could very well be that you're parroting what you read at Wikipedia.
Whatever your source, it obviously never made you bother to question it for reasonableness.


So have you read anything in the IPCC reports or not?
Have you read about the workings of the IPCC or not? How does one get appointed to work on the reports? Who writes the various reports?
How thoroughly do the models used by the IPCC account for climate drivers other than CO2? Maybe you're not aware that the models are programmed to assume CO2 drives climate. Are you?
 
longview said:
Um! here is the IPCC basic charter,
About — IPCC

The IPCC presupposes that not only does AGW exists but it is a problem that demands a government solution.
If the research found that CO2 while still being a greenhouse gas, posed no concern,
the IPCC would not a reason to exists.
The role of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere goes back to Tyndail in the nineteenth century.
( Who was not too concerned with CO2, since it mostly affected minimum temperatures.)
Actually qualifying the effects of added CO2, has been done only on a very limited empirical sense ,
with most of the studies being models, using assumptions from earlier models.
The role of aerosols is also less than clear, we really do not have good estimates of how much solar insolation
has increased since the 1970's, and that would be a kind of important number to know.
It is not bias (opinions ) if it is simply a flawed assumption.
Using that assumption, while knowing it is incorrect, that would be bias.
Click to expand...

More nonsense from a biased site, which only proves the idiots posting the nonsense are biased and want to ignore scientific facts. To people like you, the glaciers, permafrost, arctic sea ice, annual snow cover, ice shelves and all the other things showing warming are conspiring against you.
 
Gary said:
More nonsense from a biased site, which only proves the idiots posting the nonsense are biased and want to ignore scientific facts. To people like you, the glaciers, permafrost, arctic sea ice, annual snow cover, ice shelves and all the other things showing warming are conspiring against you.
Click to expand...
Please tell me what scientific facts am I ignoring?
the world is warming, that is not the question, the question is what is the contribution from added CO2?
P.S, I do not read many sites, my ideas are mine alone based on nearly 4 decades of doing advanced R&D.
 
Gary said:
More nonsense from a biased site, which only proves the idiots posting the nonsense are biased and want to ignore scientific facts. To people like you, the glaciers, permafrost, arctic sea ice, annual snow cover, ice shelves and all the other things showing warming are conspiring against you.
Click to expand...

Just for entertainment I reran a days temperature from Charleston International Airport / Charleston AFB, South Carolina
Charleston Air Force Base, SC History | Weather Underground
The 24 hour average was .62 C higher than the Hi/Low average!
The numbers are in the link if you choose to run them for yourself.
and las Vagas
North Las Vegas, NV History | Weather Underground
the 24 hour average was .84 C higher than the Hi/low average
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
I'm not beating around the bush.
I'm trying to find out how much you know so I know what to address.
So far, you've come up empty.
Could very well be that you're parroting what you read at Wikipedia.
Whatever your source, it obviously never made you bother to question it for reasonableness.


So have you read anything in the IPCC reports or not?
Have you read about the workings of the IPCC or not? How does one get appointed to work on the reports? Who writes the various reports?
How thoroughly do the models used by the IPCC account for climate drivers other than CO2? Maybe you're not aware that the models are programmed to assume CO2 drives climate. Are you?
Click to expand...

Have you lived longer and been involved in science long before there were IPCC reports, any concerns about global warming, had to use slide rules to calculate things, used Morse Code to communicate, worked with the first PC and many mainframes, been on the internet since '69, had more personal laboratory equipment than most labs and many other accomplishments in a long life.

I use wiki for basic knowledge, because it's obvious the people I'm talking to, lack basic knowledge of science and they can easily source wiki. I haven't found one denier on this or other sites who has basic scientific knowledge. Name a course, giving you such basic knowledge, you have mastered!

Worry about your own qualification. It isn't like an IPCC report comes out everyday. The next assessment report isn't due for three years, so figure that out. That will be five reports since the first report in 1990 or five reports in about 32 years with this next report taking about 9 years, if on schedule. The times I've checked, the scientists donate their time for the reports.

The only problem I see with the first report is it should have been reported in ways for the layman and not scientists or governments to understand. It should have said something like this: For years mankind has been burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 and sulfur compounds to the atmosphere, along with various other harmful substances. Eventually, the sulfates became such a problem with acid rain, stinging eyes, killing lakes and destroying monuments, that governments worked to reduce the emissions of sulfur. The cooling effect of those sulfur compounds was reduced enough for the world to experience the warming effects of CO2. At first, such warming was considered a fluke, but the governments became concerned later and asked scientist to explain the warming that didn't return to normal. Our conclusion is it a greenhouse effect caused primarily from CO2 emissions, which was masked for many years by the cooling effect of sulfates in the stratosphere.

Now, let's look back at those times. Well before those time, an undergraduate, even a freshman in college could have easily known that would happen. People were smart enough long before that report to have blackboards taken down, because they wrote down the wrong equations which were considered atomic bomb secrets. The professors didn't like their blackboards taken down and warned students to prevent that. Hell, even an 11th grade high school student doing other research could have known that, if somehow they focused on similar things and found a related subject interesting. There are many things I never studied in high school and I studied many things not taught in high school, before I got there.
 
Gary said:
Have you lived longer and been involved in science long before there were IPCC reports, any concerns about global warming, had to use slide rules to calculate things, used Morse Code to communicate, worked with the first PC and many mainframes, been on the internet since '69, had more personal laboratory equipment than most labs and many other accomplishments in a long life.

I use wiki for basic knowledge, because it's obvious the people I'm talking to, lack basic knowledge of science and they can easily source wiki. I haven't found one denier on this or other sites who has basic scientific knowledge. Name a course, giving you such basic knowledge, you have mastered!

Worry about your own qualification. It isn't like an IPCC report comes out everyday. The next assessment report isn't due for three years, so figure that out. That will be five reports since the first report in 1990 or five reports in about 32 years with this next report taking about 9 years, if on schedule. The times I've checked, the scientists donate their time for the reports.

The only problem I see with the first report is it should have been reported in ways for the layman and not scientists or governments to understand. It should have said something like this: For years mankind has been burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 and sulfur compounds to the atmosphere, along with various other harmful substances. Eventually, the sulfates became such a problem with acid rain, stinging eyes, killing lakes and destroying monuments, that governments worked to reduce the emissions of sulfur. The cooling effect of those sulfur compounds was reduced enough for the world to experience the warming effects of CO2. At first, such warming was considered a fluke, but the governments became concerned later and asked scientist to explain the warming that didn't return to normal. Our conclusion is it a greenhouse effect caused primarily from CO2 emissions, which was masked for many years by the cooling effect of sulfates in the stratosphere.

Now, let's look back at those times. Well before those time, an undergraduate, even a freshman in college could have easily known that would happen. People were smart enough long before that report to have blackboards taken down, because they wrote down the wrong equations which were considered atomic bomb secrets. The professors didn't like their blackboards taken down and warned students to prevent that. Hell, even an 11th grade high school student doing other research could have known that, if somehow they focused on similar things and found a related subject interesting. There are many things I never studied in high school and I studied many things not taught in high school, before I got there.
Click to expand...

What a load of evasive rubbish.
I don't give one crap about what you believe are your impressive life accomplishments.
None of them has anything to do with the topic of AGW.
Perhaps a semester of causal reasoning would have helped.

Not even one attempt to address anything I asked you.
Why? Because you're only repeating what someone else said but you've limited yourself to only sources that confirm your bias.
"So have you read anything in the IPCC reports or not?
Have you read about the workings of the IPCC or not? How does one get appointed to work on the reports? Who writes the various reports?
How thoroughly do the models used by the IPCC account for climate drivers other than CO2? Maybe you're not aware that the models are programmed to assume CO2 drives climate. Are you?"
 
longview said:
Please tell me what scientific facts am I ignoring?
the world is warming, that is not the question, the question is what is the contribution from added CO2?
P.S, I do not read many sites, my ideas are mine alone based on nearly 4 decades of doing advanced R&D.
Click to expand...

Did he just call the IPCC site "biased"? It may be the only thing he got right on this thread.
 
bubbabgone said:
What a load of evasive rubbish.
I don't give one crap about what you believe are your impressive life accomplishments.
None of them has anything to do with the topic of AGW.
Perhaps a semester of causal reasoning would have helped.

Not even one attempt to address anything I asked you.
Why? Because you're only repeating what someone else said but you've limited yourself to only sources that confirm your bias.
"So have you read anything in the IPCC reports or not?
Have you read about the workings of the IPCC or not? How does one get appointed to work on the reports? Who writes the various reports?
How thoroughly do the models used by the IPCC account for climate drivers other than CO2? Maybe you're not aware that the models are programmed to assume CO2 drives climate. Are you?"
Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone mention the sulfate thing, so let's see you find a source and btw, one more comment about me and you're gone, too. You asked, remember that and I don't ****ing play. Check back if you can't remember.
 
Gary said:
I've never heard anyone mention the sulfate thing, so let's see you find a source and btw, one more comment about me and you're gone, too. You asked, remember that and I don't ****ing play. Check back if you can't remember.
Click to expand...

That was gibberish.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yup. He did.
Click to expand...

Strange fellow.
Either he thinks he knows more than anyone else or he thinks he can bull**** his way through these things and no one will notice.
I'm leaning toward the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom