• 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?

code1211 said:
Regarding the warmest part of the Holocene: Glaciers outside of Greenland and the Antarctic that are melting today did not exist more than 7000 years ago. At least, that's what the US Government asserts. Also what the empirical evidence reveals.
Click to expand...
Actually, the glaciers that you are referring to not existing more than 7,000 years ago are only found in Glacier National Park, Montana. Most of Alaska's glaciers are considerably older, some are younger. The oldest glacial ice found in Alaska thus far is 30,000 years. There are approximately 198,000 glaciers world-wide and the majority are more than 7,000 years old.

The age of the oldest Alaskan glacier ice ever recovered (from a basin between Mt. Bona and Mt. Churchill) is about 30,000 years old.
Click to expand...

Source: How old is glacier ice?
 
code1211 said:
Regarding the warmest part of the Holocene: Glaciers outside of Greenland and the Antarctic that are melting today did not exist more than 7000 years ago. At least, that's what the US Government asserts. Also what the empirical evidence reveals.

Regarding the "consensus": There is none. The experts disagree on everything except their need for additional funding saying "we must act now". Change to read, "we must be funded now".

Regarding Man's complete inability to change the climate, we seem to agree. We can't do anything about it. Why claim we can? To put this in perspective, I influence or affect the climate every time I exhale. Just not too much. Same thing. Meaningless.

Regarding the general increase in wealth and comfort for all mankind, if you can't grasp this, you have a very loose tether to reality. Please link to emails sent by Ben Franklin. Please link to the recent, documented, huge reduction in world population due to famine.

Absent these or other evidence of the reduction of wealth and comfort you seem to think has occurred, I must chalk up this assertion from you with the rest of your assertions that seem to be based on fantasy.
Click to expand...

Oh the consensus is overwhelming

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
Craig234 said:
For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?
Click to expand...

It comes down to truth in advertising. What are the actual numbers, no BS, no guessing, no raising the numbers for dramatic effect. There are discrepancies among even the believers.
Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
 
Glitch said:
Actually, the glaciers that you are referring to not existing more than 7,000 years ago are only found in Glacier National Park, Montana. Most of Alaska's glaciers are considerably older, some are younger. The oldest glacial ice found in Alaska thus far is 30,000 years. There are approximately 198,000 glaciers world-wide and the majority are more than 7,000 years old.



Source: How old is glacier ice?
Click to expand...

You're probably very right about that. I was only thinking about the two places where the folks that seem to know about glaciers routinely take ice cores for research. My mistake.

That bit about the Alaskan Glacier being "about 30,000 years old" is interesting.

Does that mean that something caused this oldest Alaskan Glacier to melt in the period before 30,000 years ago and then freeze again? Seems like odd timing to be melting DURING an Ice Age that far north.
 
vegas giants said:
Oh the consensus is overwhelming

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

The consensus in this discipline is so interesting and so revealing.

All of the experts seeking and getting cash to agree with the conclusion seem to agree with the conclusion. Now THAT is a demonstrable cause-effect relationship.

It is consistent, repeatable, observable and it exists in the real world. There is also a test to falsify: Eliminate completely all funding for "Climate Research" for the next century and then we can see if the consensus continues to consent.

In passing, if there was actual scientific proof to support this drivel, the trumpeted consensus would not be needed. Nor would it be noticed.

Does anyone care if there is a consensus from blathering masses on actual, provable scientific considerations? The proof is the proof. Consensus is a smoke screen. Celebrity endorsements.

In truth, in other areas of science, the dissenters challenging the thesis gain the notoriety. Any time so many agree on a thing unproven reveals that there is an agenda or outside motivation that is unrelated to science.

The Climastrologers are bought and paid for shills advertising- not researching.

This article from a few months ago details the push to get EVEN MORE money for this scheme.

Where climate cash is flowing and why it’s not enough
<snip>
"The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that

an annual investment of $2.4 trillion is needed

in the energy system alone until 2035 to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels.

(That is around 2.5% of the world’s economy.) "
<snip>

Call me a cynic, but I have grown to question the credibility of folks, like car salesmen, who are true believers if you pay them enough to believe truly.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
The consensus in this discipline is so interesting and so revealing.

All of the experts seeking and getting cash to agree with the conclusion seem to agree with the conclusion. Now THAT is a demonstrable cause-effect relationship.

It is consistent, repeatable, observable and it exists in the real world. There is also a test to falsify: Eliminate completely all funding for "Climate Research" for the next century and then we can see if the consensus continues to consent.

In passing, if there was actual scientific proof to support this drivel, the trumpeted consensus would not be needed. Nor would it be noticed.

Does anyone care if there is a consensus from blathering masses on actual, provable scientific considerations? The proof is the proof. Consensus is a smoke screen. Celebrity endorsements.

In truth, in other areas of science, the dissenters challenging the thesis gain the notoriety. Any time so many agree on a thing unproven reveals that there is an agenda or outside motivation that is unrelated to science.

The Climastrologers are bought and paid for shills advertising- not researching.

This article from a few months ago details the push to get EVEN MORE money for this scheme.

Where climate cash is flowing and why it’s not enough
<snip>
"The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that

an annual investment of $2.4 trillion is needed

in the energy system alone until 2035 to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels.

(That is around 2.5% of the world’s economy.) "
<snip>

Call me a cynic, but I have grown to question the credibility of folks, like car salesmen, who are true believers if you pay them enough to believe truly.
Click to expand...

How convenient. If you dont like the science just claim international conspiracy of every science agency on the planet.


You can do that about anything.


Vaccines
The moon landing
Bigfoot



I get a laugh out of you guys. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
How convenient. If you dont like the science just claim international conspiracy of every science agency on the planet.


You can do that about anything.


Vaccines
The moon landing
Bigfoot



I get a laugh out of you guys. Lol
Click to expand...

You respond to actual facts with straw men. Good for you! Mommy must be so proud.

The identifying features of vaccines and the Moon landing is that they actually depended on Science and Math to produce the results they produced.

There were also various theories and hypotheses that led to the successes in both of these areas, rising from actual scientific disciplines, based on the work of real live scientists and actual researchers using the scientific method.

Big Foot, on the other hand (the other foot?) is based on the same type of drivel that CAGW Research is based on.

That you can't tell the difference between real science and drivel is, once again, noted.
 
code1211 said:
You respond to actual facts with straw men. Good for you! Mommy must be so proud.

The identifying features of vaccines and the Moon landing is that they actually depended on Science and Math to produce the results they produced.

There were also various theories and hypotheses that led to the successes in both of these areas, rising from actual scientific disciplines, based on the work of real live scientists and actual researchers using the scientific method.

Big Foot, on the other hand (the other foot?) is based on the same type of drivel that CAGW Research is based on.

That you can't tell the difference between real science and drivel is, once again, noted.
Click to expand...

Oooooooh. You want the science.


Here it is

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
code1211 said:
Regarding the warmest part of the Holocene: Glaciers outside of Greenland and the Antarctic that are melting today did not exist more than 7000 years ago.
Click to expand...
We've been over this.


Regarding the "consensus": There is none.
Click to expand...
You've made it clear that you do not have the slightest clue about how consensus works in science.


Regarding Man's complete inability to change the climate, we seem to agree.
Click to expand...
No, you're just misreading what I've written. Since I explicitly explained myself several times, it's clear that you are now doing so deliberately.


Regarding the general increase in wealth and comfort for all mankind, if you can't grasp this, you have a very loose tether to reality....
Click to expand...
I did not dispute it. My point is that human-caused climate change is going to cause massive problems for millions of human beings, since the impacts of climate change are global, and will disproportionately impact those who lack the resources to move to less-impacted areas.
 
code1211 said:
Regarding the scientists disagreeing on the best baseline to use, they do disagree. Why do you deny this?
Click to expand...
You clearly have no idea what the term "baseline" means in this context.


Regarding the best adjustment methodology, scientists do disagree on this. In truth, NASA disagrees with NASA year to year as they adjust the methodology to replace one set of conclusions with another. Why do you deny this?
Click to expand...
Because what you're saying is total bull****, based on what at this point I can only assume is a deliberate refusal to understand the truth.


Regarding your dismissal of some experts as you call them "deniers", you are deciding that some experts are charlatans. Why do you deny this?
Click to expand...
It is because, yet again, I'm not the one deciding it. E.g. actual climate scientists have called out UAH for its repeated methodological errors.


You deny facts that are inconvenient continuously to support your dogma and reject actual empirical evidence to support your dogma.
Click to expand...
I don't deny any facts. I display the distortions by deniers like you.

It's astoundingly clear that you're not making any statements in good faith, and I've already wasted enough time on your denier garbage. Have a nice day.
 
code1211 said:
You're probably very right about that. I was only thinking about the two places where the folks that seem to know about glaciers routinely take ice cores for research. My mistake.

That bit about the Alaskan Glacier being "about 30,000 years old" is interesting.

Does that mean that something caused this oldest Alaskan Glacier to melt in the period before 30,000 years ago and then freeze again? Seems like odd timing to be melting DURING an Ice Age that far north.
Click to expand...

During the last glacial period, lasting from 115,000 to 11,700 years ago, while most of Canada was covered by ice only the coastal areas of Alaska were covered in ice. The interior of Alaska (south of the Brooks Range and north of the Alaskan Range) remained ice-free and green.

It only means that the oldest ice found in Alaska's glaciers thus far is 30,000 years old. That is when the glacier formed. It doesn't mean anything melted and then reformed again, it only means that 30,000 years ago was the very beginning of that particular glacier.

Keep in mind that all glaciers are fed by snowfields. So 30,000 years ago something happened, like an increase in snowfall over an extended period, in that particular snowfield to create the new glacier.

Alaska Glaciers.jpg

Source:
Holocene coastal glaciation of Alaska - Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issues 1–3, January 2001, pp. 449-461 (free preprint)
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
We've been over this.



You've made it clear that you do not have the slightest clue about how consensus works in science.



No, you're just misreading what I've written. Since I explicitly explained myself several times, it's clear that you are now doing so deliberately.



I did not dispute it. My point is that human-caused climate change is going to cause massive problems for millions of human beings, since the impacts of climate change are global, and will disproportionately impact those who lack the resources to move to less-impacted areas.
Click to expand...

Consensus has led to idiotic conclusions from scientists before that are based on bias and depart from data in favor of predisposition.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

Mankind cannot control and direct global climate. To assert this is borderline insanity.

Over the last 9,000 or so years, the global climate seems to have varied within a two degree range or so up and down. Could be a little longer.

The warmest seems to have been about 8000 years ago. The coolest was about 140 years ago. For hairless apes, warmer seems to be be better and cooler seems to be worse.

Warmer times are marked by the flowering of civilization. Cooler times are marked by the suffering of famine and plagues. This particular interglacial has featured a global climate that has been astonishingly stable.

This stability continues today. We are well within the 2 degree temperature range demonstrated over the last 9000 years.

This article explains that the warming predicted by the alarmists never seems to be accurate AND if the formulas they use are employed to backtrack from current to past, they just don't work to track the actual temperature record.

The Thought Experiment That First Made Me A Climate Skeptic

<snip>
Then it was simple math to project the forecast lines backwards. Since we scaled current temperatures to zero, then the values where the forecast lines hit the 270 (pre-industrial) ppm mark represent how much warming we should have seen over the last 100-150 years given each sensitivity level. In other words, if the sensitivity is really 10C (the red line), we should have seen over 4C of manmade warming over the last 150 years.


We know that there has been about 0.7C of warming since the middle of the 19th century. Looking at our chart, this is hard to square with the high-sensitivity IPCC forecasts.

<snip>
 
Visbek said:
You clearly have no idea what the term "baseline" means in this context.



Because what you're saying is total bull****, based on what at this point I can only assume is a deliberate refusal to understand the truth.



It is because, yet again, I'm not the one deciding it. E.g. actual climate scientists have called out UAH for its repeated methodological errors.



I don't deny any facts. I display the distortions by deniers like you.

It's astoundingly clear that you're not making any statements in good faith, and I've already wasted enough time on your denier garbage. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I am not actually making statements. I'm asking questions. Merely challenging the obviously ridiculous assertions made. As an example: mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet.

You are making statements that raise questions. You are citing climate occurrences that are not supported by historical anecdotal accounts.

Asking the obvious questions is what the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmists, like you, seem to never do. I find this to be concerning.

Dismissing actual, empirical evidence and asserting consensus as being superior to actual science is silly.

When methodology used by the "Climate Scientists" has obviously been changed to use the same data to construct a different record, then this actually happened.

Why do you deny that it has been done?
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
During the last glacial period, lasting from 115,000 to 11,700 years ago, while most of Canada was covered by ice only the coastal areas of Alaska were covered in ice. The interior of Alaska (south of the Brooks Range and north of the Alaskan Range) remained ice-free and green.

It only means that the oldest ice found in Alaska's glaciers thus far is 30,000 years old. That is when the glacier formed. It doesn't mean anything melted and then reformed again, it only means that 30,000 years ago was the very beginning of that particular glacier.

Keep in mind that all glaciers are fed by snowfields. So 30,000 years ago something happened, like an increase in snowfall over an extended period, in that particular snowfield to create the new glacier.

View attachment 67274365

Source:
Holocene coastal glaciation of Alaska - Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issues 1–3, January 2001, pp. 449-461 (free preprint)
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Thank you.

So it wasn't particularly the temperature, but rather the aridity that prevented the glaciation. Sounds like it was a cold, green desert.
 
code1211 said:
That's interesting. Thank you.

So it wasn't particularly the temperature, but rather the aridity that prevented the glaciation. Sounds like it was a cold, green desert.
Click to expand...

Yes, increased temperatures will cause much more snowfall on mountains. This will accumulate ice mass on places like Greenland and the remaining mountain glaciers of the world.

When the next ice age comes along these high altitude glaciers will, very slowly, flow down and drain away because of the reduction in precipitation.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, increased temperatures will cause much more snowfall on mountains. This will accumulate ice mass on places like Greenland and the remaining mountain glaciers of the world.

When the next ice age comes along these high altitude glaciers will, very slowly, flow down and drain away because of the reduction in precipitation.
Click to expand...
I know people use the phrase glacial to describe a slow pace, but some historical references
put glacier at a fairly rapid pace!
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 - Brian Fagan - Google Books
In 1642 the ice advanced by over a musket shot per day, even in August.
If we assume a musket shot is ~40 meters, that is 14.6 kilometers in a year!!!
 
Tim the plumber said:
I suspect that that would be on some days, not an average.
Click to expand...
The way it was phrased, that was the minimum, but it is very likely something got lost in translation and retelling.
Hyperbole is not a new Human trait!
 
code1211 said:
That's interesting. Thank you.

So it wasn't particularly the temperature, but rather the aridity that prevented the glaciation. Sounds like it was a cold, green desert.
Click to expand...

It was because the interior of Alaska was in a rain shadow. Precipitation from the coastal areas could not get over the Alaskan Range or the Brooks Range, which left interior Alaska glacier free. It was still much colder than it is today, and it gets very cold in the interior of Alaska (-60°F during the Winter is common for Fairbanks, Delta Junction, Tok, and other portions of interior Alaska). It was just free of glaciers.
 
longview said:
I know people use the phrase glacial to describe a slow pace, but some historical references
put glacier at a fairly rapid pace!
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 - Brian Fagan - Google Books
In 1642 the ice advanced by over a musket shot per day, even in August.
If we assume a musket shot is ~40 meters, that is 14.6 kilometers in a year!!!
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of the ~198,000 glaciers on this planet are currently retreating, but there are some still advancing. The Hubbard Glacier is the world's largest non-polar tidewater glacier and it is currently advancing. The Hubbard Glacier terminus is nearly 9 miles (14 km) wide, and does not advance at the same rate across its entire width.

Source:
Glaciological and marine geological controls on terminus dynamics of Hubbard Glacier, southeast Alaska - Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 120, Issue 6, June 2015, pp. 1065-1081
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, increased temperatures will cause much more snowfall on mountains. This will accumulate ice mass on places like Greenland and the remaining mountain glaciers of the world.

When the next ice age comes along these high altitude glaciers will, very slowly, flow down and drain away because of the reduction in precipitation.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

In a previous series of posts on mountain glaciers some years back, I seem to recall a poster noting that the ice mass capping Kilimanjaro was shrinking. The decrease of ice was said to be due to increased aridity as well.

Another example of real world science. Repeated empirical results supporting a justified conclusion or at least a well founded, reasonable expectation that might help create a test to falsify.

There seems to be a stark contrast in this approach as it departs from the methodology of the Climastrologists. ;)
 
code1211 said:
Thank you!

In a previous series of posts on mountain glaciers some years back, I seem to recall a poster noting that the ice mass capping Kilimanjaro was shrinking. The decrease of ice was said to be due to increased aridity as well.

Another example of real world science. Repeated empirical results supporting a justified conclusion or at least a well founded, reasonable expectation that might help create a test to falsify.

There seems to be a stark contrast in this approach as it departs from the methodology of the Climastrologists. ;)
Click to expand...

I expect that the top of the highest mountain in Africa would not get any snowfall for years at a time. When the snow occaisionall falls it will stay there for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom