• 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 is so hard about climate change?

Visbek said:
:roll:

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not like hitting the gas pedal in your car; it takes decades for the full effect of a change in CO2 to impact global temperatures. If CO2 emissions came to a dead stop today, the climate would continue to warm for decades to come.

And again: Global temperatures are now the warmest they've been in over 11,000 years, and they will continue to climb.
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years | Science (Marcott paper)
Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak - Scientific American (SciAm summary)

index.php




News flash! Global temperatures ARE rising, as climate scientists "said it would do."

I have no idea why you think a link about the Younger Dryas in any way disproves AGW.
Click to expand...

Why do you edit away the majority of posts for no other reason than to change the meaning and then present them as if they have not been changed? A simple highlight is easier and less deceptive.

Very slippery. It's confusing to me how you seem to think that deception and truth are in any ways similar. Might explain your views on this topic...

You are asserting that controlling CO2 will allow mankind to control and direct the climate of the planet.

I am pointing out that the climate of the planet has acted EXACTLY the way it has acted and is acting. Previous examples of climate change changed without the influence you say is the primary driver.

Your assertion that controlling anthropogenic CO2 emissions will control climate is silly. It assumes that the other 50 or so climate influencers, including the Sun, are subordinate to CO2 emissions.

I don't need to prove anything besides the fact that the climate has changed in the past and is changing now in exactly the same way(s) without the cause you cite as essential. I have proven my case.

YOU need to prove your case and you have not.

Your chart is, incidentally, meaningless. It is empirically dishonest and obviously wrong. The evidence that destroys it is all around us and you simply refuse to see it. Ignorance is not proof. It's ignorance.

You are, however, free to proceed to present proof. It might be painful for you, but it also might be a good kind of pain. ;)

Watcha got?
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Why do you edit away the majority of posts for no other reason than to change the meaning and then present them as if they have not been changed?
Click to expand...
:roll:

We've been over this before. I'm not changing the meaning of your posts in any way. You merely attack the presentation because your arguments are abject failures.


Your assertion that controlling anthropogenic CO2 emissions will control climate is silly. It assumes that the other 50 or so climate influencers, including the Sun, are subordinate to CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
:roll:

We've been over this as well. The fact that there are natural causes of climate change in no way, shape or form means that "humans can't impact climate."

Again: Increases in GHGs trap more heat, leading to temperature increases in the oceans and surface and atmosphere. Humans have been emitting massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, in amounts the planet hasn't seen in nearly 1 million years. So yes, those emissions (along with their feedback effects, and other human actions like deforestation, emptying aquifers etc) are in fact overwhelming natural causes of climate change.

Again: The planet was around 6000 years into a cooling phase, and had another 23,000 years to go in that cooling phase. It is human activity that is driving most of the increase in temperatures.

Again: This is all documented, tested, examined etc by thousands of climate scientists, working around the world.

Again: This is no different than lung cancer. The fact that lung cancer can develop naturally and in non-smokers does not change the fact that cigarette smoking is the primary cause of approximately 90% of cases of lung cancer. The mere existence of a natural cause, again, does not somehow rule out the possibility of a human-driven cause.


I don't need to prove anything besides the fact that the climate has changed in the past and is changing now in exactly the same way(s) without the cause you cite as essential.

I have proven my case.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Climate scientists have proven it, over and over and over and over. Your refusal to accept the science is not my problem.

You haven't proven jack ****.


Your chart is, incidentally, meaningless. It is empirically dishonest and obviously wrong.
Click to expand...
:roll:

We've been over this before, too. None of your objections to Marcott hold water. We should also note that your claims of past climate change are all based on the same data Marcott cites. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
 
Visbek said:
Again: The planet was around 6000 years into a cooling phase, and had another 23,000 years to go in that cooling phase. It is human activity that is driving most of the increase in temperatures.

Again: This is all documented, tested, examined etc by thousands of climate scientists, working around the world.
Click to expand...

According to what you are saying, we are delaying the next ice age, maybe avoiding it completely.

Just think how far we can advance this time around if the apocalyptic ice age doesn't come!
 
Lord of Planar said:
According to what you are saying, we are delaying the next ice age, maybe avoiding it completely.

Just think how far we can advance this time around if the apocalyptic ice age doesn't come!
Click to expand...

LOL The next Ice age isn't "due" for about 100,000 years. Ice ages are not the only "apocalyptic" disasters the Earth has endured either. In fact they are only one of the mass extinctions the planet has experienced.

Throughout the Phanerozoic (from 542 million years ago), major mass extinctions of species closely coincided with abrupt rises of atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean acidity. These increases took place at rates to which many species could not adapt. These events - triggered by asteroid impacts, massive volcanic activity, eruption of methane, ocean anoxia and extreme rates of glaciation.
Our global carbon reserves - including coal, oil, oil shale, tar sands, gas and coal-seam gas - contain considerably more than 10,000 billion tonnes of carbon (see Figure 5). This amount of carbon, if released into the atmosphere, is capable of raising atmospheric CO2 levels to higher than 1000ppm. Such a rise in atmospheric radiative forcing will be similar to that of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum (PETM), which happened about 55 million years-ago (see Figures 1, 2 and 4). But the rate of rise surpasses those of this thermal maximum by about ten times.
Click to expand...

Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species
 
iguanaman said:
LOL The next Ice age isn't "due" for about 100,000 years. Ice ages are not the only "apocalyptic" disasters the Earth has endured either. In fact they are only one of the mass extinctions the planet has experienced.

These events - triggered by asteroid impacts, massive volcanic activity, eruption of methane, ocean anoxia and extreme rates of glaciation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Massive volcanic activity and asteroid impacts would be big killers. The CO2 bit is not what did the killing.

The Glaciation would be bad, as cold is bad.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Massive volcanic activity and asteroid impacts would be big killers. The CO2 bit is not what did the killing.

The Glaciation would be bad, as cold is bad.
Click to expand...

Too much CO2 in the air and the resulting acidification of the oceans caused the worst mass extinctions. The carbon that was removed by plants to fix that is what we are digging up and putting back into the air now.
 
iguanaman said:
Too much CO2 in the air and the resulting acidification of the oceans caused the worst mass extinctions. The carbon that was removed by plants to fix that is what we are digging up and putting back into the air now.
Click to expand...

So do the math of this for me ? How can an extra 100PPM = 0.01% of CO2 in our atmospheric envelope do all this ? Especially as we can as yet only guess at the correct value for its climate sensitivity

Here is a heads up (again) of the dozens of factors we don't know that control climate and CO2 is only a very minor one of them

https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

We've been over this before. I'm not changing the meaning of your posts in any way. You merely attack the presentation because your arguments are abject failures.



:roll:

We've been over this as well. The fact that there are natural causes of climate change in no way, shape or form means that "humans can't impact climate."

Again: Increases in GHGs trap more heat, leading to temperature increases in the oceans and surface and atmosphere. Humans have been emitting massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, in amounts the planet hasn't seen in nearly 1 million years. So yes, those emissions (along with their feedback effects, and other human actions like deforestation, emptying aquifers etc) are in fact overwhelming natural causes of climate change.

Again: The planet was around 6000 years into a cooling phase, and had another 23,000 years to go in that cooling phase. It is human activity that is driving most of the increase in temperatures.

Again: This is all documented, tested, examined etc by thousands of climate scientists, working around the world.

Again: This is no different than lung cancer. The fact that lung cancer can develop naturally and in non-smokers does not change the fact that cigarette smoking is the primary cause of approximately 90% of cases of lung cancer. The mere existence of a natural cause, again, does not somehow rule out the possibility of a human-driven cause.



:roll:

Climate scientists have proven it, over and over and over and over. Your refusal to accept the science is not my problem.

You haven't proven jack ****.



:roll:

We've been over this before, too. None of your objections to Marcott hold water. We should also note that your claims of past climate change are all based on the same data Marcott cites. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Click to expand...

You love those little cartoons, don't you.

I'll just address the Marcott chart and ignore your stupidly childish editing of my thoughts. Your habit is revealing of so much that you probably wish was not known about you.

The chart by Marcott indicates that the warmest point in the Holocene was the point at which the Glaciers in Glacier National Park were STARTING to form. What's wrong with this picture.

C'mon, man! The case you're making is based on stupidity and laced with insanity.

Glaciers don't START to form at the peak of a warming period during which they are melting. The glaciers in the Italian alps are now melted to a point of 5000 years ago.

Your version of the history is corrupted, your conclusion is wallowing in ignorance and your prediction of dire consequence is tiresome.

The telling tale of Glacier National Park’s ‘gone by 2020’ signs

By James Delingpole

January 10, 2020 | 7:31pm

Enlarge Image
glacier-national-park-1.jpg




Bad title - Wikipedia
 
code1211 said:
The chart by Marcott indicates that the warmest point in the Holocene was the point at which the Glaciers in Glacier National Park were STARTING to form. What's wrong with this picture.
Click to expand...
What's wrong is that despite all the facts, you somehow are utterly stuck on the idea that the example of GNP proves your position -- when it actually does the opposite.

The glaciers in GNP started to form when... wait for it... the climate started to cool. Marcott's data indicates that temperatures peaked and then started to decline slightly around 7000 years ago, which is right in the time frame for the start of those glaciers.

And as we've previously discussed, some of the glaciers in GNP very likely survived the warmer parts of the past ~12,000 years.

And as we've previously discussed, the glaciers in GNP are in fact melting right now. They were at their largest extent around 1850.

From USGS: The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.
(Emphasis added)
History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

In fact, glaciers around the planet are shrinking.

Himalayas: Himalayan glaciers melting at alarming rate, spy satellites reveal
Alps: Almost all glaciers in the Alps could disappear by 2100: study | News | DW | 09.04.2019
Sierras: Sierra Nevada Glacier Change
Patagonia: Shrinking Patagonian Glaciers
Alaska (via Fox News, no less) https://www.foxnews.com/science/alaskan-glacier-shrinking-over-time-in-incredible-images

I might add, the idea that scientific facts are refuted because the National Park Service changed a few signs is utterly absurd, if not rock-bottom. Kudos.
 
Visbek said:
What's wrong is that despite all the facts, you somehow are utterly stuck on the idea that the example of GNP proves your position -- when it actually does the opposite.

The glaciers in GNP started to form when... wait for it... the climate started to cool. Marcott's data indicates that temperatures peaked and then started to decline slightly around 7000 years ago, which is right in the time frame for the start of those glaciers.

And as we've previously discussed, some of the glaciers in GNP very likely survived the warmer parts of the past ~12,000 years.

And as we've previously discussed, the glaciers in GNP are in fact melting right now. They were at their largest extent around 1850.

From USGS: The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.
(Emphasis added)
History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

In fact, glaciers around the planet are shrinking.

Himalayas: Himalayan glaciers melting at alarming rate, spy satellites reveal
Alps: Almost all glaciers in the Alps could disappear by 2100: study | News | DW | 09.04.2019
Sierras: Sierra Nevada Glacier Change
Patagonia: Shrinking Patagonian Glaciers
Alaska (via Fox News, no less) https://www.foxnews.com/science/alaskan-glacier-shrinking-over-time-in-incredible-images

I might add, the idea that scientific facts are refuted because the National Park Service changed a few signs is utterly absurd, if not rock-bottom. Kudos.
Click to expand...

No. When the climate started to cool it was, by definition at the peak of temperature.

So if you think that only temperature regulates glacier size how do you think it works?
 
Tim the plumber said:

No. When the climate started to cool it was, by definition at the peak of temperature.

So if you think that only temperature regulates glacier size how do you think it works?
Click to expand...

Snowfields regulate glacier size and the rate at which they either advance or retreat. Depending on the size of the glacier, the actual face of the glacier can be several thousand years old. Reflecting the condition of the snowfield from several thousand years in the past. Advancing and retreating glaciers are not a reflection of current temperatures, but always what was happening in the past. Again, it depends on the size and length of the glacier determining how far back into the past we're talking about.
 
Glitch said:
Snowfields regulate glacier size and the rate at which they either advance or retreat. Depending on the size of the glacier, the actual face of the glacier can be several thousand years old. Reflecting the condition of the snowfield from several thousand years in the past. Advancing and retreating glaciers are not a reflection of current temperatures, but always what was happening in the past. Again, it depends on the size and length of the glacier determining how far back into the past we're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes, but getting a message of "it's complicated" out is far away from the brain death of the cultists.
 
Visbek said:
What's wrong is that despite all the facts, you somehow are utterly stuck on the idea that the example of GNP proves your position -- when it actually does the opposite.

The glaciers in GNP started to form when... wait for it... the climate started to cool. Marcott's data indicates that temperatures peaked and then started to decline slightly around 7000 years ago, which is right in the time frame for the start of those glaciers.

And as we've previously discussed, some of the glaciers in GNP very likely survived the warmer parts of the past ~12,000 years.

And as we've previously discussed, the glaciers in GNP are in fact melting right now. They were at their largest extent around 1850.

From USGS: The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.
(Emphasis added)
History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

In fact, glaciers around the planet are shrinking.

Himalayas: Himalayan glaciers melting at alarming rate, spy satellites reveal
Alps: Almost all glaciers in the Alps could disappear by 2100: study | News | DW | 09.04.2019
Sierras: Sierra Nevada Glacier Change
Patagonia: Shrinking Patagonian Glaciers
Alaska (via Fox News, no less) https://www.foxnews.com/science/alaskan-glacier-shrinking-over-time-in-incredible-images

I might add, the idea that scientific facts are refuted because the National Park Service changed a few signs is utterly absurd, if not rock-bottom. Kudos.
Click to expand...

Your childish and dishonest editing for no other reason than to change the meaning goes on. Will you ever tire of this ridiculous and dishonest deception?
 
code1211 said:
Your childish and dishonest editing for no other reason than to change the meaning goes on. Will you ever tire of this ridiculous and dishonest deception?
Click to expand...
I replied exactly to your points.

It is obvious that you simply cannot accept the scientific facts, let alone understand their implications. That's your problem, not mine.
 
Visbek said:
I replied exactly to your points.

It is obvious that you simply cannot accept the scientific facts, let alone understand their implications. That's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


Well! You finally included all of my post in your response. Good For YOU!

That wasn't too hard now, was it?

The simple facts are these:

Temperatures in the past have been much, much warmer while CO2 concentrations have been much, much lower.

You are asserting that this departure from your stated cause-effect is impossible. I am saying that it actually happened.

Your presentation of the Marcott drivel that departs from the actual, accepted climate history demonstrates your corrupted understanding of climate history.

It is only by discarding most of the climate history that you can support your delusion.

Sorry. My view of the science is that the science destroys your dogma. You dogma is not supported by empirical science.

In the event that you can EVER use actual science to support your assertions, then I might be convinced.
 
I'm not sure if it's important, exactly, what's causing climate change or human impact on the environment- as it is to agree to combat it? The planet would definitely benefit from reducing methane, CO2 from fracking, petroleum production, fossil fuels, coal energy etc.
 
grip said:
I'm not sure if it's important, exactly, what's causing climate change or human impact on the environment- as it is to agree to combat it? The planet would definitely benefit from reducing methane, CO2 from fracking, petroleum production, fossil fuels, coal energy etc.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the planet would benefit from less CO2 and methane? I don't see any trouble at all from methane as it is destroyed very quickly in the air and have yet to see any real problem from CO2 but please enlighten me.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Why do you think the planet would benefit from less CO2 and methane? I don't see any trouble at all from methane as it is destroyed very quickly in the air and have yet to see any real problem from CO2 but please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

As we know, what you ‘see’ is irrelevant, since you are an undereducated amateur.


f5acb03f6b27981ed869ff34ad7e969d.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
As we know, what you ‘see’ is irrelevant, since you are an undereducated amateur.


f5acb03f6b27981ed869ff34ad7e969d.jpg
Click to expand...

Corrected copy:

[FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig2.jpg
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). [/FONT][/FONT]
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion
 
Jack Hays said:
Corrected copy:

[FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig2.jpg
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). [/FONT][/FONT]
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion
Click to expand...

Looks like that agrees with me- CO2 is a major issue as is CH4 (FYI for Tim... CH4 is methane in science-talk).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom