• 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!

Climate Alarmism in the 1970's

vegas giants said:
I will let the reader decide. My god you are hilarious
Click to expand...
So you are unable to prove you point with data or text from your cited source, and so attempt to deflect.
it will not work, the statements, do not include anything about the observed warming being a problem,
that is something you implied, but it is not stated!
 
longview said:
So you are unable to prove you point with data or text from your cited source, and so attempt to deflect.
it will not work, the statements, do not include anything about the observed warming being a problem,
that is something you implied, but it is not stated!
Click to expand...

Dude. They all say it is a problem. A child can see this.


You make me laugh
 
vegas giants said:
Dude. They all say it is a problem. A child can see this.


You make me laugh
Click to expand...
Well then if they all say it, why can you not cite where they say it on the page you cited as them all saying it?
Perhaps it is because you are wrong?
 
longview said:
Well then if they all say it, why can you not cite where they say it on the page you cited as them all saying it?
Perhaps it is because you are wrong?
Click to expand...

American Physical Society

"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
 
vegas giants said:
American Physical Society

"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
Click to expand...

It is two statements, and not linked.
The first says "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe."
True enough, if we go into another ice age, it will be a problem.
The second statement,
While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
Click to expand...
is simply a repeat of what all the other groups have said! Something implied, but not actually stated.
 
longview said:
It is two statements, and not linked.
The first says "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe."
True enough, if we go into another ice age, it will be a problem.
The second statement,

is simply a repeat of what all the other groups have said! Something implied, but not actually stated.
Click to expand...

So they believe it is a critical issue with the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe.


Right?
 
vegas giants said:
So they believe it is a critical issue with the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe.


Right?
Click to expand...
They said "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe."
The did not say that Human activity would be sufficient to cause said changing climate.
What is also telling here is that your cited site claiming that consensus of AGW is the consensus of catastrophic AGW,
shows that only one of the eight associations listed even had a statement that implied that Climate change could cause disruption.
So how does one out of eight get expanded to every scientific association?
You have to ask, why, when they could have made an explicit statement, they choose to only imply a connection?
In my opinion, this goes to the vast uncertainty surrounding AGW.
When the house of cards that is the concept of AGW collapses, they want to be able to back down their
statement with their dignity intact.
Your seeing statement of problems and catastrophic predictions in statements where they do not exists,
shows your bias on the topic. I have a bias also, but mine is driven by the empirical data.
What is your bias driven by?
 
longview said:
They said "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe."
The did not say that Human activity would be sufficient to cause said changing climate.
What is also telling here is that your cited site claiming that consensus of AGW is the consensus of catastrophic AGW,
shows that only one of the eight associations listed even had a statement that implied that Climate change could cause disruption.
So how does one out of eight get expanded to every scientific association?
You have to ask, why, when they could have made an explicit statement, they choose to only imply a connection?
In my opinion, this goes to the vast uncertainty surrounding AGW.
When the house of cards that is the concept of AGW collapses, they want to be able to back down their
statement with their dignity intact.
Your seeing statement of problems and catastrophic predictions in statements where they do not exists,
shows your bias on the topic. I have a bias also, but mine is driven by the empirical data.
What is your bias driven by?
Click to expand...

I give up. If you can read that and not get it....then you never will
 
longview said:
I know other studies had different findings, but a single study for a limited time window, does not replace many decades
of actual asymmetry.
You have to consider that if the diurnal and annual asymmetry was observed on the nineteenth century,
it is likely a long term phenomenon.
Click to expand...

All the newer studies say diurnal asymmetry is much lower and on the decline. You are cherry-picking the most dramatic while ignoring all the others that are not.

And this is just as dishonest as an alarmist only using RCP 8.5 in discussions of how bad AGW might be.
 
vegas giants said:
I give up. If you can read that and not get it....then you never will
Click to expand...
If you do not see that the consensus statements are carefully crafted to allow themselves to back out,
then you never will!
 
longview said:
If you do not see that the consensus statements are carefully crafted to allow themselves to back out,
then you never will!
Click to expand...

Joining the conspiracy theory crowd now are we??

:roll:
 
longview said:
If you do not see that the consensus statements are carefully crafted to allow themselves to back out,
then you never will!
Click to expand...

Name one that has backed out.


Dude.....come on
 
Buzz said:
All the newer studies say diurnal asymmetry is much lower and on the decline. You are cherry-picking the most dramatic while ignoring all the others that are not.

And this is just as dishonest as an alarmist only using RCP 8.5 in discussions of how bad AGW might be.
Click to expand...
Recent movement in the Diurnal temperature range may have little bearing on the overall, if the Diurnal warming has been asymmetrical
for over a century.
Consider that if in 1993 Karl found that the average minimum temperature increased 0.84°C while the average maximum temperature increased only 0.28°C.
that 0.84°C represents a very large piece of the overall temperature increase, and will not change much if the
Diurnal temperature range decreases some.
 
vegas giants said:
Name one that has backed out.


Dude.....come on
Click to expand...
There is no need to back out just yet, the funds are still flowing.
There will come a time when proponents of AGW are about as popular as proponents of Eugenics.
The weak vague statements, do not say much, and so it will be easy to back away from.
 
longview said:
There is no need to back out just yet, the funds are still flowing.
There will come a time when proponents of AGW are about as popular as proponents of Eugenics.
The weak vague statements, do not say much, and so it will be easy to back away from.
Click to expand...

Your predictions are dismissed.


You have nothing
 
vegas giants said:
Your predictions are dismissed.


You have nothing
Click to expand...
It is you who has not demonstrated that AGW is the same as catastrophic AGW.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and added CO2 does cause some warming.
Doubling the CO2 level should force warming of ~ 1.1°C, IF the assumptions are correct.
Beyond that, it is very unclear if any net positive feedbacks exists.
Consider what even the GISS says, and do the math.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.
Click to expand...
We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption,
with clouds responsible for about 25% — and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect.
Click to expand...
Ok, so ALL CO2 is responsible for 20% of 150 W/m2 of energy imbalance, or 30 W/m2.
Only going back to 1ppm of CO2 takes 8 doubling s from the pre industrial level of 280 ppm,
so each doubling has a fully equalized value of 30/8= 3.75 W/m2, or 3.75 X .3=1.125°C.
The eons old CO2 has fully equalized, the net feedback is near zero!
Sooner or later, the alarmist will be exposed, and the proponents of AGW, will start to disavow their participation.
 
longview said:
Recent movement in the Diurnal temperature range may have little bearing on the overall, if the Diurnal warming has been asymmetrical
for over a century.
Consider that if in 1993 Karl found that the average minimum temperature increased 0.84°C while the average maximum temperature increased only 0.28°C.
that 0.84°C represents a very large piece of the overall temperature increase, and will not change much if the
Diurnal temperature range decreases some.
Click to expand...

Oh stop it long!! You are just rationalizing your cherry-picking of Karl et al. And Karl et al. only covered 37% of the Earth's surface, with data from 1951 to 1990, and was the first to actually try and measure diurnal asymmetry. Several of the studies since then are more advanced, cover more of the planet, and represent what is happening now. And saying that diurnal asymmetry right now is 3 times higher for min than max is pretty much a lie.

You can't even admit to yourself that you are cherry-picking your studies... can you?
 
vegas giants said:
We are warming now due to co2. Society has changed a lot in the last 5000 years. I am not willing to live like they did.....are you?
Click to expand...

I don't understand how your post in any way addresses ANYTHING in my post.
 
Mr Person said:
One guy wrote an article in the 70s it was wrong, therefore PoS knows more about climate science than do tens of thousands of people who devoted their careers to it around the world.

Passersby were amazed by the amount of fail.
Click to expand...

Astoundingly, bad band wagon science has attracted support from tens of millions of people with poor discernment and judgment. Much of what is being promoted as global warming science is nothing more than badly misinterpreted and even misrepresented data and the gullible buy into it only because that is what everybody else seems to do.
 
Buzz said:
Oh stop it long!! You are just rationalizing your cherry-picking of Karl et al. And Karl et al. only covered 37% of the Earth's surface, with data from 1951 to 1990, and was the first to actually try and measure diurnal asymmetry. Several of the studies since then are more advanced, cover more of the planet, and represent what is happening now. And saying that diurnal asymmetry right now is 3 times higher for min than max is pretty much a lie.

You can't even admit to yourself that you are cherry-picking your studies... can you?
Click to expand...
Except that Karl et al was not the only study that found massive asymmetry between T-Min and T-Max.
 
longview said:
Except that Karl et al was not the only study that found massive asymmetry between T-Min and T-Max.
Click to expand...

None anywhere near 3 times. At lease that are listed in Davy.
 
Buzz said:
None anywhere near 3 times. At lease that are listed in Davy.
Click to expand...
The three times was only discussed in 3 studies, but whatever the number is the asymmetry between T-min and T-Max is still quite large.
Davy_fig_1.jpg
 
Finally found this, which shows some serious concerns about the cooling in the 1960-1970 time frame.

Scientific, Environmental, and Political Context Leading to Concept of a Climate Diagnostics Workshop

36 page PDF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom