• 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

Jack Hays said:
Ah but there was. Memory of it survived even the 1984-ish effort of William Connolley to erase all evidence from Wikipedia. He was banned from editing at Wikipedia as a result, and the flame of truth flickers on.
Click to expand...

Ah but there wasn't. Nice try rewriting history.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not sure Watts was the untruthful party.
Click to expand...

You're standing by your guy with the High School diploma. Your money is on him and types like him to flip that paradigm! Good luck! :lol:
 
jpn said:
Why do you write flat statements like that that a 10-second glimpse at Google will quickly dispel? Are you trolling me?
Click to expand...

Because those are insignificant.

www.realclearenergy.org › articles › 2016/10/23 › debunking_the_fo...

[h=3]Debunking the Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Myth | RealClearEnergy[/h]
yL4DVQapn1370XpAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC







Oct 22, 2016 - Last year, in an effort to eliminate all direct fossil-fuel subsidies, President ... It's not. Since 2005, the science behind the climate and other ...
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Because those are not subsidies.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll play. Please provide your definition of subsidies so we can resolve this. This is about as tiresome as your compatriots trying to wriggle out of the notion of a scientific consensus.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because those are insignificant.
Click to expand...

That's a very different statement than to say no subsidies at all.

And I'm sure your convenient use of the word subsidy excludes all the many special tax favors for oil and gas producers that have been in force since Woodrow Wilson and are still in place today as the longest-running welfare program in the nation's history.
 
jpn said:
Ah but there wasn't. Nice try rewriting history.
Click to expand...

Skeptics aren't the ones who tried to erase the historical record.

[h=2]Before 1960s-’70s Global Cooling Was Erased, It Caused Droughts, Crop Failures, Glacier Advance, Ice Age Threats[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 27. November 2017
Changing Scientific Consensus 1970s: Global Cooling A Serious Threat Today: Global Cooling Never Happened Until the mid-1980s, it was widely accepted in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that there was an abrupt global cooling trend between the 1940s and 1970s. The amplitude of the climate change amounted to more than -0.5°C of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, as […]
 
jpn said:
You're standing by your guy with the High School diploma. Your money is on him and types like him to flip that paradigm! Good luck! :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually, the paradigm will be flipped by Svensmark and Shaviv. Watts is more like a canary in the mineshaft, signaling something is wrong.
 
jpn said:
Okay, I'll play. Please provide your definition of subsidies so we can resolve this. This is about as tiresome as your compatriots trying to wriggle out of the notion of a scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

jpn said:
That's a very different statement than to say no subsidies at all.

And I'm sure your convenient use of the word subsidy excludes all the many special tax favors for oil and gas producers that have been in force since Woodrow Wilson and are still in place today as the longest-running welfare program in the nation's history.
Click to expand...

Please see the link in #280.
 
longview said:
Everything I have seen published implies that while the CO2 forcing is log based, the feedback responses to those forcing is very linear.
So 1.1 C perturbation from the 10 to 20 ppm, would be responded to exactly the same as the 1.1C from the 280 to 560 ppm.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that. And I would ask that you back yourself up but we all know you can't accurately interpret the contents of any study. Maybe I will look into it later.

longview said:
The energy blocked from the ground is the question, and it is at the tail end of it's capability,...
Click to expand...

Damn long! Why do you insist on ignoring the energy absorbed and emitted by the atmosphere? It is where all the direct effects of the greenhouse gases are happening and where much of the increasing temperatures are coming from. Seriously longview... there is no way you can understand and debate AGW if you deny this fact. And this is why you are so frequently wrong about this subject.

longview said:
...but let's look at your cited number,

The OLR and RSR are anti-correlated, with a correlation coefficient of−43%. The OLR shows an increasing trend of 0.23±0.03 (1 σ) W/m2dec.
Click to expand...

Notice that the OLR number is increasing, a positive number, if more energy is leaving Earth, the we are cooling, not warming.
Click to expand...

Yes, this would be true if the temperature of the Earth was stable. But it isn't. It is rising and this causes an increase in the outgoing longwave radiation coming from the warming atmosphere. It even states this in that study(something else you ignored).

longview said:
Warming would be caused from OLR decreasing in relation to the incoming energy, thus the energy being retained by Earth's atmosphere.
Click to expand...

This is also true and is why increasing CO2(and other GHG) causes a warming of the planet. What you seem to be forgetting is equalization. You know... how the planet is able to stop warming. By the increased output of energy until the amount going in is the same as what is going out.

Take the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) you cited earlier to incorrectly claim CO2 is mostly saturated. While the trend is going down there is still an imbalance. And that imbalance is causing the planet to continue to warm.
 
jpn said:
Actually, many nations are taking significant steps to address global warming. It's sad to watch the US, which I'm used to thinking of as setting an example for the world, be dragged backward by a political party that is anti-science.
Click to expand...


Leftist communists pervert interpretations of weather data to claim the US is evil for not donating trillions of dollars to the common international goal of global sustainable communist growth among all nations. The deceived stooges of climate change propaganda accuse sensible thinkers of being scientifically stupid for not blindly buying the false science global warming narrative. Americans who want to redistribute American wealth among poor nations in support of the global communist growth goals are stupid.
 
marke said:
Leftist communists pervert interpretations of weather data to claim the US is evil for not donating trillions of dollars to the common international goal of global sustainable communist growth among all nations. The deceived stooges of climate change propaganda accuse sensible thinkers of being scientifically stupid for not blindly buying the false science global warming narrative. Americans who want to redistribute American wealth among poor nations in support of the global communist growth goals are stupid.
Click to expand...

Let me guess. You're off your meds today.

Don't fight the nice men in the white coats. They're your friends.
 
Jack Hays said:
Skeptics aren't the ones who tried to erase the historical record.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with using climate denier websites to support your position. You can find any denier claim supported there. Any at all. And they can all be just as easily refuted:

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
Posted on 3 May 2018 by David Kirtle
In the decades since the 1970s, some "skeptics" of global warming/climate change have made claims that "all the scientists" in the 1970's were predicting "global cooling" or an "imminent ice age". But, the PCF08 survey of papers from 1965 to 1979 showed that while there were some concerns about future "cooling", especially at the beginning of the time period, there were many more concerns about future warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...

So that gets us nowhere.

Admit it. You don't have the chops to really investigate the reality of climate change. Neither do I. So instead we're left with relying on our perception of what is reasonable to believe.

I believe the vast majority of people who study this thing for a living and base their professional reputations on their work. I have no reason not to believe them.

You believe in isolated websites run by people with nothing more than a High School degree, or a "scientist" who quit research fifty years ago to write novels and screenplays, and even a few actual scientists who claim lots of stuff but for some reason don't seem to move the needle much on the scientific consensus on climate change. On the contrary, the evidence today is just overwhelming and the deniers within the scientific community are more and more isolated and pathetic. Your reason for believing these people is obvious. It's not your penetrating insight. It's not your comprehensive grasp of the nuances of climate theory. No, they simply fit your preexisting ideology.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
jpn said:
Cosmic ray theory of global warming gets cold response | Cosmos

Waiting for Gidot. Or the paradigm shift. Whatever. :roll:

Meanwhile, the Earth burns.
Click to expand...

The deniers' alternative theories have so little credible that the deniers can't even agree on what alternative theory to believe in.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"

The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed — Quartz
 
jpn said:
Here's the problem with using climate denier websites to support your position. You can find any denier claim supported there. Any at all. And they can all be just as easily refuted:

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
Posted on 3 May 2018 by David Kirtle


So that gets us nowhere.

Admit it. You don't have the chops to really investigate the reality of climate change. Neither do I. So instead we're left with relying on our perception of what is reasonable to believe.

I believe the vast majority of people who study this thing for a living and base their professional reputations on their work. I have no reason not to believe them.

You believe in isolated websites run by people with nothing more than a High School degree, or a "scientist" who quit research fifty years ago to write novels and screenplays, and even a few actual scientists who claim lots of stuff but for some reason don't seem to move the needle much on the scientific consensus on climate change. On the contrary, the evidence today is just overwhelming and the deniers within the scientific community are more and more isolated and pathetic. Your reason for believing these people is obvious. It's not your penetrating insight. It's not your comprehensive grasp of the nuances of climate theory. No, they simply fit your preexisting ideology.
Click to expand...

I assume you noticed that the paper to which you linked had among its authors the same William Connolley who was banned from Wikipedia editing for "disappearing" global cooling papers.
I started as a conventional AGW believer. I was repelled by the chicanery of AGW advocates and attracted by the insights or some skeptics' arguments.
Most of all I was influenced by study of the history of science, where I do have chops, btw. In many cases of scientific revolution, newer, bigger science supplants older thinking. AGW theory is essentially a product of 19th century physics. The science of Svensmark and Shaviv (and others) draws on 20th and 21st century knowledge and concepts unknown to Arrhenius et al.
The attractiveness of AGW theory for many is its implicit limits-to-growth and anti-capitalist message.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's Godot.
That article came out literally within days of the publication of Svensmark et al 2017. It's hard to escape the suspicion that it was drafted before the paper was read, let alone studied.
Svensmark et al have a follow-up paper due out shortly.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the discussion. You are level-headed and I guess sincere. You posted a number of articles from highly questionable sources, but basing your climate skepticism on the Kuhnian critique of science is novel in my experience and interesting. As I posted earlier, I think the Kuhn critique is highly overdrawn. Kuhn's insights were certainly interesting, as far as they went, and I know The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most highly cited works in the philosophy of science. It gained a popular following in the 1980s when some social scientists were busy trying to take down the physical sciences in a pique of jealousy (IMHO).

Basing your denialism on Kuhn is better than mere hackery. Which is about the best thing I've ever been able to say about climate denial.
 
jpn said:
Thanks for the discussion. You are level-headed and I guess sincere. You posted a number of articles from highly questionable sources, but basing your climate skepticism on the Kuhnian critique of science is novel in my experience and interesting. As I posted earlier, I think the Kuhn critique is highly overdrawn. Kuhn's insights were certainly interesting, as far as they went, and I know The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most highly cited works in the philosophy of science. It gained a popular following in the 1980s when some social scientists were busy trying to take down the physical sciences in a pique of jealousy (IMHO).

Basing your denialism on Kuhn is better than mere hackery. Which is about the best thing I've ever been able to say about climate denial.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I guess. My new copy of Kuhn is the University of Chicago's 50th anniversary edition. It's a pretty short list of non-fiction works that get a 50th anniversary edition.
 
Jack Hays said:
In 2001, NASA showed about 0.5C warming from 1880 to 2000.
Click to expand...

FYI, all three links in your post went to the same place. Tony Heller, who runs that denier site, dropped my state to testify before a Senate panel two years ago:

In his testimony, Heller claimed that possibly a dozen members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had changed temperature data so that climate scientists would conclude that global warming is more severe than it actually is.

Seattle Weekly has not been able to identify a reputable source that would confirm such a finding. [UPDATE: During the presentation and in a later blog post refuting aspects of this article, Heller points to comments that a retired NOAA scientist named John Bates made to the Daily Mail as evidence, though his claims have been challenged.]

What we do know is that, as of Tuesday, the EPA’s website stated that the average Pacific Northwest temperature rose 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the 20th century, and predicted that the Northwest’s average temperature will rise 3 to 10 degrees by the end of the 21st century. The EPA’s Web site also notes that climate change will impact the Northwest’s mountain snowmelts, irrigation systems, fish populations, and pests and disease that threatens forests.

During his testimony, Heller also referred to a year-old accusation that NOAA fudged its temperature data when it made some adjustments for how temperature measuring had changed over the past 150 years.

As The Guardian newspaper of London reported then, the adjustments were required to account for different types of thermometers being used over that span, as well as variations in the times of day that measurements were taken, as well as the relocation of some thermometers.

The Guardian cited a peer-reviewed study by the University of York and the University of California at Berkeley that double-checked NOAA’s adjustments, and found that those tweaks were done correctly. In fact, The Guardian reported that NOAA’s tweaks verified that while temperatures have been increasing, they have not been doing so as quickly as originally thought.
[...]
In the days prior to his appearance, Heller—an active Twitter user, who also believes Barack Obama was not born in the United States and that the New York Times is “fake news”—tweeted photos of the Puget Sound area’s recent snow as arguments against global warming.
[...]
Also on Monday and Tuesday, he tweeted:
:Democrats hate Trump supporters for the same reasons that Nazis hated Jews.
They are just one more hate cult seeking a scapegoat."
"It is ridiculous to say Trump doesn't like immigrants. Just like Michelle Obama, he is married to one."
Click to expand...

So he's a crank. Why do you push arguments made by cranks? It just undercuts any legitimacy you may gain with arguments based on difficulties in science to accept radical thinking and sourcing real scientists like Svensmark. I just don't understand your lack of discernment.
 
jpn said:
FYI, all three links in your post went to the same place. Tony Heller, who runs that denier site, dropped my state to testify before a Senate panel two years ago:



So he's a crank. Why do you push arguments made by cranks? It just undercuts any legitimacy you may gain with arguments based on difficulties in science to accept radical thinking and sourcing real scientists like Svensmark. I just don't understand your lack of discernment.
Click to expand...

I suggest you deal with the data rather than stooping to ad hominem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom