• 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!

2019 2nd Hottest Year On Record

Visbek said:
Milankovitch Cycles. Look it up. Read the Shakun paper as an example.



Yaay, more pseudo-scientific denier bull****. :roll: Yes, the effects of CO2 are logarithmic rather than linear. No, we are nowhere near the point where "20ppm does nothing."



Did you LOOK at your own chart? Obviously not.

View attachment 67271905



Again: The climate hasn't been this warm in 100,000 years. What's wrong with your comprehension?



Holy ****, are you even remotely serious?

The glaciers ARE melting. GNP has lost 39% of its glacial coverage since 1966. In geological time, that's the blink of an eye. GNP will lose most of its glaciers in just a few decades.



Most of them started forming around 7000 years ago. They grew as the climate cooled. Now that the climate is warming, they are melting. What part of this are you missing? Is it this part?

marcott-2013




You mean, when did I stop being a child about science? A long time ago.

Since you missed it: The planet is warming because of human activity. Denying AGW is equivalent to proclaiming that the Earth is flat, that cigarettes are healthy for you, and that perpetual motion machines are possible. Climate change deniers are not the heroes here. Y'all are the Flat Earthers in this debate.
Click to expand...

I see that Visbek, has ignored my post 134 that showed the Marcott chart is false (you don't care about this fact) which is why you continue to use it despite that Marcott himself states that red line is useless.

You never posted a LINK to that false chart, scared to do the right thing?

Why continue this lie, Visbek?
 
Sunsettommy said:
I see that Visbek, has ignored my post 134 that showed the Marcott chart is false (you don't care about this fact) which is why you continue to use it despite that Marcott himself states that red line is useless.

You never posted a LINK to that false chart, scared to do the right thing?

Why continue this lie, Visbek?
Click to expand...

Marcott said no such thing.

The current temperatures are not what he was studying, because why would you do a comprehensive study of proxies WHEN YOU HAVE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA?

But I guess your case is so weak you have to lie to support it.
 
Threegoofs said:
Marcott said no such thing.

The current temperatures are not what he was studying, because why would you do a comprehensive study of proxies WHEN YOU HAVE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA?

But I guess your case is so weak you have to lie to support it.
Click to expand...

:lamo

I posted the link to his statement at post 134, too bad you are allergic to links.....

You are so bad it is funny!
 
Threegoofs said:
I read it. And he didnt say what you pretend he said.
Click to expand...

Did you follow the link, oh I forgot you are allergic to links....

It is from REALCLIMATE blog:

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; Publish with us | AGU).
Click to expand...

red bolding mine

LINK

Once again you are wrong....

:lamo
 
longview said:
The greenhouse theory is simply that our planet is 33C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
While the greenhouse theory has been around for close to two centuries now, there is no validation, no laboratory experiment,
that can actually demonstrate that added CO2 will cause the warming predicted.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong.

"Earth's surface is 33 degrees warmer than it would be if it had no atmosphere. A planet the size of earth at earth's distance from the sun, and in thermodynamic equilibrium with solar radiation, would have a surface temperature of -18 degrees C. Earth's average surface is 15 degrees C, or 33 degrees C warmer. This increase in temperature is due mostly to greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere."

Source: Many. Google "Earth's equilibrium temperature."

Here's the NASA website on it: Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
jpn said:
Totally wrong.

"Earth's surface is 33 degrees warmer than it would be if it had no atmosphere. A planet the size of earth at earth's distance from the sun, and in thermodynamic equilibrium with solar radiation, would have a surface temperature of -18 degrees C. Earth's average surface is 15 degrees C, or 33 degrees C warmer. This increase in temperature is due mostly to greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere."

Source: Many. Google "Earth's equilibrium temperature."

Here's the NASA website on it: Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

So what would the temperature be with an atmosphere containing no greenhouse gasses?

Are you suggesting the greenhouse effect is even less that the 33 degrees?
 
jpn said:
He's still a lone voice in the wilderness. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Follow the money. More than 99% of it is paid to support the agenda.
 
Jack Hays said:
Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003


". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "
Click to expand...

Says Michael Crichton, non-scientist and climate denier. I wonder how NASA feels about a scientific consensus? Why, they devote an entire web page to it! So a fiction writer knows more than the scientists at NASA? Um, don't think so.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Very much a scientist. Harvard MD.
Click to expand...

I just looked it up. Eh, not much work in the field of science. Yes, he got his PhD. But apparently did less than one year of work in the field. His biography says: "John Michael Crichton (/ˈkraɪtən/; October 23, 1942 – November 4, 2008) was an American author, screenwriter, and film director and producer."
The wikipedia page says: "During his clinical rotations at the Boston City Hospital [50 years ago], Crichton grew disenchanted with the culture there, which appeared to emphasize the interests and reputations of doctors over the interests of patients.[9][page needed] He graduated from Harvard, obtaining an MD in 1969,[27] and undertook a post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970.[28] He never obtained a license to practice medicine, devoting himself to his writing career instead.[29]

Reflecting on his career in medicine years later, Crichton concluded that patients too often shunned responsibility for their own health, relying on doctors as miracle workers rather than advisors. He experimented with astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance, coming to believe that these included real phenomena that scientists had too eagerly dismissed as paranormal.[9]

Sound like a real free-thinker. Clairvoyance, eh?
 
jpn said:
I just looked it up. Eh, not much work in the field of science. Yes, he got his PhD. But apparently did less than one year of work in the field. His biography says: "John Michael Crichton (/ˈkraɪtən/; October 23, 1942 – November 4, 2008) was an American author, screenwriter, and film director and producer."
The wikipedia page says: "During his clinical rotations at the Boston City Hospital [50 years ago], Crichton grew disenchanted with the culture there, which appeared to emphasize the interests and reputations of doctors over the interests of patients.[9][page needed] He graduated from Harvard, obtaining an MD in 1969,[27] and undertook a post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970.[28] He never obtained a license to practice medicine, devoting himself to his writing career instead.[29]

Reflecting on his career in medicine years later, Crichton concluded that patients too often shunned responsibility for their own health, relying on doctors as miracle workers rather than advisors. He experimented with astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance, coming to believe that these included real phenomena that scientists had too eagerly dismissed as paranormal.[9]

Sound like a real free-thinker. Clairvoyance, eh?
Click to expand...

Just like Newton.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Did you follow the link, oh I forgot you are allergic to links....

It is from REALCLIMATE blog:



red bolding mine

LINK

Once again you are wrong....

:lamo
Click to expand...

Umm. Right. The 20th century portion of proxies is not solid.

But no one needs it to be because WE HAVE ACTUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

Sorry that you got hoodwinked by Watts. He’s an idiot, and now you know too.
 
Threegoofs said:
Umm. Right. The 20th century portion of proxies is not solid.

But no one needs it to be because WE HAVE ACTUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

Sorry that you got hoodwinked by Watts. He’s an idiot, and now you know too.
Click to expand...
I really can't make up my mind whether his egregious cherry-picking is hilarious or sad. He not only obviously fails to understand the paper (which I'm sure he hasn't read), but he completely fails to understand Marcott's own FAQ explaining why the paper, which uses the instrumental record, is valid.

Here's one part of the FAQ he missed. I wonder if that's on purpose?

Q: How do you compare the Holocene temperatures to the modern instrumental data?

A: One of our primary conclusions is based on Figure 3 of the paper, which compares the magnitude of global warming seen in the instrumental temperature record of the past century to the full range of temperature variability over the entire Holocene based on our reconstruction. We conclude that the average temperature for 1900-1909 CE in the instrumental record was cooler than ~95% of the Holocene range of global temperatures, while the average temperature for 2000-2009 CE in the instrumental record was warmer than ~75% of the Holocene distribution. As described in the paper and its supplementary material, Figure 3 provides a reasonable assessment of the full range of Holocene global average temperatures, including an accounting for high-frequency changes that might have been damped out by the averaging procedure.
(Emphasis added)
 
Visbek said:
I really can't make up my mind whether his egregious cherry-picking is hilarious or sad. He not only obviously fails to understand the paper (which I'm sure he hasn't read), but he completely fails to understand Marcott's own FAQ explaining why the paper, which uses the instrumental record, is valid.

Here's one part of the FAQ he missed. I wonder if that's on purpose?

Q: How do you compare the Holocene temperatures to the modern instrumental data?

A: One of our primary conclusions is based on Figure 3 of the paper, which compares the magnitude of global warming seen in the instrumental temperature record of the past century to the full range of temperature variability over the entire Holocene based on our reconstruction. We conclude that the average temperature for 1900-1909 CE in the instrumental record was cooler than ~95% of the Holocene range of global temperatures, while the average temperature for 2000-2009 CE in the instrumental record was warmer than ~75% of the Holocene distribution. As described in the paper and its supplementary material, Figure 3 provides a reasonable assessment of the full range of Holocene global average temperatures, including an accounting for high-frequency changes that might have been damped out by the averaging procedure.
(Emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Doesn't "warmer than ~75%" mean cooler than about 25%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom