• 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!

IPCC scientist on sea level rise and fall

AlbqOwl said:
That one is hard to say. We know that a large asteroid or comet or some catastrophic event happened to take out the dinosaurs in a relatively short period that would suggest a runaway climate change at that time. Scientists teach that our north and south poles have flipped hundreds of times over the life of Planet Earth and some speculate that we are overdue for that. When it happens it will provoke violent climate change for essentially all the Earth and won't be pleasant for the plants and creatures that inhabit the Earth at that time. Also in 2012, we narrowly escaped a direct hit from a massive violent solar storm. If the next one hits, will that change our climate? Scientists honestly don't know.

IMO opinion climate scientists should be focused on these kinds of things as well as inevitable and 'normal' climate change and figuring out ways humankind can best adapt to them. Putting all their emphasis on the relatively miniscule effect on climate of humans just living their lives is like spitting into the wind and accomplishes about as much good.
Click to expand...

Why are you expecting the magnetic pole shift to destroy plant life?
 
Media_Truth said:
We are right where the predictions have stated that we'd be - about a 0.9 deg C rise, for a 47% rise in CO2 (280 ppm to 411ppm). At a minimum, for a doubling of CO2, discounting very likely feedbacks, we are looking at 1.9 deg C.

IPCC 1.5-Degree C Special Report | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

- Global warming of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels poses greater risks than previously believed. These risks can be substantially reduced by limiting warming to 1.5 degrees
- Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C requires dramatic emission reductions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by around 2050. This would entail unprecedented transformations of energy, land, urban, and industrial systems, including measures to achieve “negative emissions” by removing carbon from the atmosphere.
- Adaptation efforts are currently insufficient to prevent losses associated with 1.5 degrees C warming, but can be significantly increased to reduce the negative consequences of climate change.
Click to expand...

OK, so why the hyperbole about runaway? +1.9c does not sound much to me.
 
Threegoofs said:
In your opinion, ‘many botanists think CO2 levels are alarmingly low’.

Forgive everyone if they don’t put too much stock in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I don't put any stock in your opinion.
 
Tim the plumber said:
OK, so why the hyperbole about runaway? +1.9c does not sound much to me.
Click to expand...

1.9 deg C is plenty as the IPCC link clearly shows. And this is a minimum number, discounting feedbacks. Feedbacks can certainly cause higher ECS scenarios (i.e "runaway")....

Are you even familiar with the feedbacks?
 
Threegoofs said:
Well. I mean, you either are completely ignorant of what you said or a complete liar, and you haven’t admitted which one it is yet.

I await more hand wringing.
Click to expand...

The only one doing hand wringing seems to be you. How is that OCD thing plus daily TDS working out for you and the other anti-Trump folks do you think? Meanwhile as the topic is an IPCC scientist's opinion on sea levels, I suggest we discuss that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The only one doing hand wringing seems to be you. How is that OCD thing plus daily TDS working out for you and the other anti-Trump folks do you think? Meanwhile as the topic is an IPCC scientist's opinion on sea levels, I suggest we discuss that.
Click to expand...

Look... you lied and won’t admit it.

Don’t whine because I remember your dishonesty and lack of character. It stands out, and I’ll call you on it whenever I like.
 
Tim the plumber said:
YouTube

IPCC scientist on sea level rise and fall.

Interesting. He seems to agree with my guess of a possible sea level drop if anything.
Click to expand...

I look at islands and coastlines around the world, compare them to old photos and maps, and don't really see an issue with a rising sea.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look... you lied and won’t admit it.

Don’t whine because I remember your dishonesty and lack of character. It stands out, and I’ll call you on it whenever I like.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you stop trolling me on threads unrelated to your disingenuous complaint.

Meanwhile I suggest you discuss the topic of this thread or find one more to your liking.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I suggest that you stop trolling me on threads unrelated to your disingenuous complaint.

Meanwhile I suggest you discuss the topic of this thread or find one more to your liking.
Click to expand...

This thread is very related.

You make up stuff about scientists in one thread, you can’t pretend that a track record of making up stuff shouldn’t follow you to a different thread about a different aspect of the science.

I’ll note that you still have no defense, just complaints that I remember it...
 
Threegoofs said:
This thread is very related.

You make up stuff about scientists in one thread, you can’t pretend that a track record of making up stuff shouldn’t follow you to a different thread about a different aspect of the science.

I’ll note that you still have no defense, just complaints that I remember it...
Click to expand...

You don't let your track record of trolling or failure to post credible links to credible sources or inability to make a coherent argument that isn't copied and pasted deter you from showing up with your nonsense. So hopefully you'll understand that I consider your opinion of me to be equally as indefensible. It's a lovely early evening. I suggest you take advantage of it.
 
Meanwhile featured on today's RCP list of articles is this from Francis Minton, the Manhattan Contrarian who asks questions of the IPCC findings that nobody seems to be able to answer. Certainly nobody in the sea rising part of the debate is offering any answers:

--What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!

--What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!

--Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!

You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union. . .​
Manhattan Contrarian

We who fall in the realm of the skeptics are told to put our questions, logic, reason, observations aside and just accept the not-so-overwhelming consensus on what the IPCC promotes as settled science.

And we certainly aren't suppose to be asking the questions that Minton presents.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Meanwhile featured on today's RCP list of articles is this from Francis Minton, the Manhattan Contrarian who asks questions of the IPCC findings that nobody seems to be able to answer. Certainly nobody in the sea rising part of the debate is offering any answers:

--What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!

--What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!

--Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!

You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union. . .​
Manhattan Contrarian

We who fall in the realm of the skeptics are told to put our questions, logic, reason, observations aside and just accept the not-so-overwhelming consensus on what the IPCC promotes as settled science.

And we certainly aren't suppose to be asking the questions that Minton presents.
Click to expand...

Well, when you lie about thinks that obviously are not true, I’m not sure why anyone would bother to read your recommended readings. Tainted.
 
Phys251 said:
If only there was a link that I had supplied somewhere in this thread that answered your question before you even asked it! ;)
Click to expand...

You have never said what you mean by runaway global warming.

Linking to stuff and not quoting from it is not acceptable. It shows you have not read the thing you are linking to.
 
Media_Truth said:
1.9 deg C is plenty as the IPCC link clearly shows. And this is a minimum number, discounting feedbacks. Feedbacks can certainly cause higher ECS scenarios (i.e "runaway")....

Are you even familiar with the feedbacks?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand feedbacks.

I further understand that the IPCC has accounted for these in its' projections.

The term runaway usually means that there will be a situation where the feedbacks cause more feedback than 1. That is you get the self reinforcing effect which results in never ending warming.

Given that the earth has been much warmer with much more CO2 in the past this is clearly not going to happen.

That you cannot articulate all this shows that you are not thinking at all when you deal with this subject.
 
Rickeroo said:
I look at islands and coastlines around the world, compare them to old photos and maps, and don't really see an issue with a rising sea.
Click to expand...

Ah, Grasshopper, that sort of thinking will cause you to be called denier of science. Using evidence is not what the Consensus[SUP]TM[/SUP] wants.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I suggest that you stop trolling me on threads unrelated to your disingenuous complaint.

Meanwhile I suggest you discuss the topic of this thread or find one more to your liking.
Click to expand...

Insults from losers should be taken as compliments. Clearly you have got through to him. He is forced to project that hurt onto you.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Insults from losers should be taken as compliments. Clearly you have got through to him. He is forced to project that hurt onto you.
Click to expand...

:) I long ago stopped giving them any credibility about anything. And they don't bother me personally in any way. I just wish there was some board rule that would keep them from stalking, trolling, derailing.

Topics like this thread are really interesting to me and I learn a lot.
 
AlbqOwl said:
:) I long ago stopped giving them any credibility about anything. And they don't bother me personally in any way. I just wish there was some board rule that would keep them from stalking, trolling, derailing.

Topics like this thread are really interesting to me and I learn a lot.
Click to expand...

Come on.

In a related topic, you completely mischaracterize the science and frankly, just make stuff up. (‘Many botanists today think the levels of CO2 are alarmingly low’).

You get called out on it- I ask you to find ONE botanist who says that, let alone ‘many’, and you can’t find anything.

And there’s no acknowledgement about that, no admission, nothing. You just pretend you are correct and plow on with more inaccuracies.

I don’t see how you can ‘learn a lot’ if you can’t recognize how incredibly wrong you are.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You have never said what you mean by runaway global warming.

Linking to stuff and not quoting from it is not acceptable. It shows you have not read the thing you are linking to.
Click to expand...

The way he replies and his choice of words doesn't indicate that he has a science degree.

I think he is here to promote fog in the attempt to stop debate since he KNOWS he can't make a debate of the topic.
 
Sunsettommy said:
The way he replies and his choice of words doesn't indicate that he has a science degree.

I think he is here to promote fog in the attempt to stop debate since he KNOWS he can't make a debate of the topic.
Click to expand...

I debate with the religious. I am an atheist.

The tactics used by both the Alarmists and the religious are identical.

1, Make a bold claim which sounds massive. When challenged they meant it in the lesser way. So all scientist believe in climate change can mean anything between we are all doomed and there will be no change you will notice.

2, Throw in too long to read stuff with no guidance to the bit where it deals with the topic in hand. Bash the bible. Quote the front cover of the IPCC's report.

3, Appeal to authority.

4, Attack the person rather than the science.

5, Change the subject as fast as possible. Understand that to explain why something is wrong takes longer than shouting doom.

6, Repeat 1.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You have never said what you mean by runaway global warming.

Linking to stuff and not quoting from it is not acceptable. It shows you have not read the thing you are linking to.
Click to expand...

You'd know exactly what it meant if you read the article which was clearly provided for you. ;)
 
Tim the plumber said:
I debate with the religious. I am an atheist.

The tactics used by both the Alarmists and the religious are identical.

1, Make a bold claim which sounds massive. When challenged they meant it in the lesser way. So all scientist believe in climate change can mean anything between we are all doomed and there will be no change you will notice.

2, Throw in too long to read stuff with no guidance to the bit where it deals with the topic in hand. Bash the bible. Quote the front cover of the IPCC's report.

3, Appeal to authority.

4, Attack the person rather than the science.

5, Change the subject as fast as possible. Understand that to explain why something is wrong takes longer than shouting doom.

6, Repeat 1.
Click to expand...

I debate with the religious. I am an atheist.

The tactics used by both the Deniers and the religious are identical.

1. Pretend to be an expert on something on which one knows very little.

2. When questioned, throw a temper tantrum and link to a bunch of sources that are either bunk or do not make the point that the denier wants to make.

3. Appeal to authority.

4. Attack the person rather than the science.

5. Change the subject as fast as possible. Understand that to explain why something is wrong takes longer than firing off juvenile insults.

6. Repeat 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom