• 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!

What, me worry?

JackA said:
I think it's fair to say that scientists generally take any 97% scientific statistic seriously. If they didn't it would wreck the entire concept of peer review. Non scientists intelligently take such a statistic seriously because they have no choice but to rely on scientists when the subject is science.

Shaviv's comment is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Shavis's comment is right on the money.
 
JackA said:
Greenhouse gases reach record levels, report finds - CNN

No problem. Probably part of the great Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...

Duh....

That's a no brainier that CO2 will keep increasing.

But, CNN, being at politically active to the left and stupid as they are, is wrong.

Lie #1. CO2 is the second most dominant greenhouse gas. H2O is the most dominant.

Lie #2. Using their timeframe from 1990, CO2 only increased by about 15%. The warming by CO2 would be minimal though. If we use 5.35 x ln (1.15) = 0.748 W/m^2, this as a small increase from the already 31 W/m^2 CO2 had in 1990, and is only a 2.4% increase in CO2 warming.

Now the dominant greenhouse gas, H2O with it's solid and vapor forms in the atmosphere cause more than 200 W/m^2 in warming.

You guys are so easily duped.
 
bubbabgone said:
The problem is that there's nothing scientific about that 97% number.
If you know how it was arrived at you too would think it's too laughable to even be called a statistic.
Click to expand...

Okay, but that's not the man's foolish argument.
 
JackA said:
Okay, but that's not the man's foolish argument.
Click to expand...

The 97% number is so misunderstood. It is nothing more than a number reflecting how many people believe AGW has some influence. It does not reflect that 97% of the people think it is most of the climate influence.
 
We are a carbon based economy. If you live in the city, every convenience you indulge is wrapped in carbon to provide it to you.
NYC has probably the best public water imaginable and yet bottled water is still legal. Go figure.
 
JackA said:
Greenhouse gases reach record levels, report finds - CNN

No problem. Probably part of the great Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...

I found this paragraph interesting...

The dominant greenhouse gases released into the Earth's atmosphere reached record levels in 2018, and their global warming power is now 43% stronger than in 1990, according to a new report by the American Meteorological Society released Monday.
 
Media_Truth said:
I found this paragraph interesting...

The dominant greenhouse gases released into the Earth's atmosphere reached record levels in 2018, and their global warming power is now 43% stronger than in 1990, according to a new report by the American Meteorological Society released Monday.
Click to expand...

Which is either an intentional lie, or those writing it are total fools.
 
OK, I looked up what the report says:

In 2018, the dominant greenhouse gases released into
Earth’s atmosphere—carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide—continued their increase. The annual global average
carbon dioxide concentration at Earth’s surface was 407.4 ±
0.1 ppm, the highest in the modern instrumental record and
in ice core records dating back 800 000 years. Combined,
greenhouse gases and several halogenated gases contribute
just over 3 W m−2 to radiative forcing and represent a nearly
43% increase since 1990. Carbon dioxide is responsible for
about 65% of this radiative forcing.
​

This is rather deceptive It does not match with CNN's lies of what they say. So we heve liews un top of deception!

Compare what the part I quoted from the Abstract on pdf page 19 says with what CNN said:

The dominant greenhouse gases released into the Earth's atmosphere reached record levels in 2018, and their global warming power is now 43% stronger than in 1990, according to a new report by the American Meteorological Society released Monday.
​

Now what is deceptive about the report is they don't give any proper baselines. With their numbers, they make it sound like CO2 is responsible for 65% of the 3 W/m^2, since 1990. That would be 1.95 W/m^2, which is the number the science community would now use for the time since 1750. Not 1990. They are not making the separate distinction that the total 3 W/m^2 of mankinds contribution is since 1750. Now the total of these gasses might be a 43% increase in emissions, but they are very wishy-washy with their intent, allowing people to draw incorrect conclusions. A 43% increase in emissions does not equate to 43% increase in warming. Warming from radiant forcing changes is not linear.

I may or may not take time trying to decipher exactly what the true findings are. Suffice it to say, that since they are being so enigmatic with the facts, I don't expect to see anything but agenda driven speaking points.
 
On page S50, they say this:

The combined forcing in 2018 was 3.10 W m−2 and represents a nearly 43% increase since 1990 (2.16 W m−2; 2018 AGGI = 1.434).
​

Understanding the perspective they come from, they are speaking of levels relative to 1750. The should specify they are using 1750 as a baseline,m but they don't. This really gives people not understanding where zero starts at, the wrong perspective.

It's like using different scales. One layman might see a 5 degree increase from their normal 15 degree temperature and say the temperature was 33% higher than normal. Their neighbor might use thermometers in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, and say they only say the temperature increase 15% above normal. In the real sciences, that 15 degrees is 288 kelvin, and increases to 293 K. It's actually, in science terms, only a 1.7% increase.

We have the same thing going on here. Unless you have studied the climate science, people get all freaked out. Science organizations should not be writing like this. They should always point out there the "absolute" values lie. In this case, CO2 has a 1990 value of about 31 W/m^2, from zero absolute CO2 forcing. If I use the AR5 value for CO2 since 1750, they claim 1.8 W/m^2. This would a change then from approximately 31 to 32.8 W/m^2. This is only a 5.8% increase in CO2 forcing.

People are so easily duped by the writings is they don't understand where everything is coming from.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Which is either an intentional lie, or those writing it are total fools.
Click to expand...

It jives with the IPCC Radiative Forcing chart. Actually it's showing a little less than the IPCC.

AR5 Radiative forcing_Fig8.15_Pg697.JPG
 
Media_Truth said:
It jives with the IPCC Radiative Forcing chart. Actually it's showing a little less than the IPCC.

View attachment 67261895
Click to expand...

But in your chart, notice they specify the 1750 to 2011 timeframe.

You obviously didn't comprehend my words. They mix the 3.1 value with 1990 to 2018.
 
flogger said:
Great ! That means the Earth will keep getting greener still !

Greening of the Earth and its drivers | Nature Climate Change

The ideal level for plant growth is some three times the level of CO2 today

YouTube
Click to expand...

But, as we all know, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere raises the temperature of the Earth, thus causing the sea level to rise as ice melts and seawater expands. And crops don't grow underwater, no matter how much CO2 is in the air!
 
Lord of Planar said:
But in your chart, notice they specify the 1750 to 2011 timeframe.

You obviously didn't comprehend my words. They mix the 3.1 value with 1990 to 2018.
Click to expand...

Let's go back to the CNN article, which you claim to have poo-poo'd. The CNN article references the following link.

State of the Climate - American Meteorological Society

State of the Climate
An international, peer-reviewed publication released each summer, the State of the Climate is the authoritative annual summary of the global climate published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The document is extremely long and thorough, with all advanced scientific references cited. Chapter 2 alone, is 64 pages. Of course, we all know that you can RUN CIRCLES around all these scientists, but just for grins, why don't you reference the exact area of the document where you are in disagreement, and cite those references, in context.
 
Surface Detail said:
But, as we all know, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere raises the temperature of the Earth, thus causing the sea level to rise as ice melts and seawater expands. And crops don't grow underwater, no matter how much CO2 is in the air!
Click to expand...

And a partridge in a pear tree ....... :yawn:
 
Last edited:
While reading parts of State of the Climate 2018, released by the American Meteorological Society, I noticed this statement.

Preliminary data indicate that glaciers across the
world continued to lose mass for the 30th consecutive
year. For the 25 reporting glaciers, only one reported
a positive mass balance for the year.

That one that "positive mass balance" is probably a subject for Watts up With That to pursue. :lol:
 
Lord of Planar said:
On page S50, they say this:

The combined forcing in 2018 was 3.10 W m−2 and represents a nearly 43% increase since 1990 (2.16 W m−2; 2018 AGGI = 1.434).
​

Understanding the perspective they come from, they are speaking of levels relative to 1750. The should specify they are using 1750 as a baseline,m but they don't. This really gives people not understanding where zero starts at, the wrong perspective.

It's like using different scales. One layman might see a 5 degree increase from their normal 15 degree temperature and say the temperature was 33% higher than normal. Their neighbor might use thermometers in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, and say they only say the temperature increase 15% above normal. In the real sciences, that 15 degrees is 288 kelvin, and increases to 293 K. It's actually, in science terms, only a 1.7% increase.

We have the same thing going on here. Unless you have studied the climate science, people get all freaked out. Science organizations should not be writing like this. They should always point out there the "absolute" values lie. In this case, CO2 has a 1990 value of about 31 W/m^2, from zero absolute CO2 forcing. If I use the AR5 value for CO2 since 1750, they claim 1.8 W/m^2. This would a change then from approximately 31 to 32.8 W/m^2. This is only a 5.8% increase in CO2 forcing.

People are so easily duped by the writings is they don't understand where everything is coming from.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are making no sense at all. We are interested in the change in forcing from pre-industrial times, when there was a state of radiative balance, not the change relative to some fictional state when there was no CO2 in the atmosphere! That's why it makes sense to use the forcing in 1750 as a baseline and express changes in forcing relative to then.
 
Surface Detail said:
As usual, you are making no sense at all. We are interested in the change in forcing from pre-industrial times, when there was a state of radiative balance, not the change relative to some fictional state when there was no CO2 in the atmosphere! That's why it makes sense to use the forcing in 1750 as a baseline and express changes in forcing relative to then.
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting then that we de industrialise and hence de populate the planet ? And current renewables technologies simply won't economically cut it especially for the third world

So who's first for the chop ? :(
 
JackA said:
Okay, but that's not the man's foolish argument.
Click to expand...

So I'm clear on what you're talking about, just what is the man's foolish argument that you referred to?
 
bubbabgone said:
So I'm clear on what you're talking about, just what is the man's foolish argument that you referred to?
Click to expand...

His 97 percent argument I addressed immediately above yours in post 23:

"I think it's fair to say that scientists generally take any 97% scientific statistic seriously. If they didn't it would wreck the entire concept of peer review. Non scientists intelligently take such a statistic seriously because they have no choice but to rely on scientists when the subject is science.

Shaviv's comment is idiotic."
 
JackA said:
His 97 percent argument I addressed immediately above yours in post 23:

"I think it's fair to say that scientists generally take any 97% scientific statistic seriously. If they didn't it would wreck the entire concept of peer review. Non scientists intelligently take such a statistic seriously because they have no choice but to rely on scientists when the subject is science.

Shaviv's comment is idiotic."
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
JackA said:
His 97 percent argument I addressed immediately above yours in post 23:

"I think it's fair to say that scientists generally take any 97% scientific statistic seriously. If they didn't it would wreck the entire concept of peer review. Non scientists intelligently take such a statistic seriously because they have no choice but to rely on scientists when the subject is science.

Shaviv's comment is idiotic."
Click to expand...

Then I don't understand your complaint. Why is it idiotic?
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Your Crichton quote is the skin deep nonsense. Of course the consensus itself isn't science. It is the science that goes into the consensus. But without wordplay, deniers would have a harder time than they already do.
 
JackA said:
Your Crichton quote is the skin deep nonsense. Of course the consensus itself isn't science. It is the science that goes into the consensus. But without wordplay, deniers would have a harder time than they already do.
Click to expand...

Consensus is an effect, not a cause. And to cite it as the motivation for anything is to get the question backward.
 
bubbabgone said:
Then I don't understand your complaint. Why is it idiotic?
Click to expand...

When 97 of one hundred people looking at a door say the door is closed and three say the door is open, it is possible all 97 are mistaken but it would be idiotic not to take their opinion seriously before charging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom