• 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!

It's Time to Confront Climate Extremism

Jack Hays said:
That's an editorial comment that's beside the point. The important story is the walk-back from use of the worst-case scenario as a baseline.
Click to expand...

From very catastrophic to just catastrophic. That’s a long ways from your position which is that it’s not real.
 
I'm willing to do anything 50% or more of AGW believers are willing to do on a 100% voluntary basis--with the exception of sterilization and giving up meat.

Anything fewer than 50% of believers can be bothered to do in the absence law, statute, regulation, tax, incentive, or ban, I can't be bothered to do/support either. This is more than fair. considering I don't trust climate modeling as far as I can throw it.
 
Jack Hays said:
And why is that single article more credible than the several which are linked in the NTZ post?
Click to expand...

Try googling “ why are German automobile sales dropping in 2019?” And see if the reasons have anything to do with the misleading stuff written in the NTZ article.

But witnessing the power of the will to believe is a marvel indeed!
 
COTO said:
I'm willing to do anything 50% or more of AGW believers are willing to do on a 100% voluntary basis--with the exception of sterilization and giving up meat.

Anything fewer than 50% of believers can be bothered to do in the absence law, statute, regulation, tax, incentive, or ban, I can't be bothered to do/support either. This is more than fair. considering I don't trust climate modeling as far as I can throw it.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
Jack Hays said:
The WUWT post provides an accurate account of the Nature article and includes a link to it for those who want to see for themselves.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t. Does the summary say that even under the best case scenario, the consequences would still be catastrophic?
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate science does an about-face: dials back the ‘worst case scenario’
Click to expand...
They're running into problems with the younger generations.

The narrative requires the public to be fearful enough to accede to carbon credits, supranational regulation, and a significant decline in mean quality of life. However, they've inadvertently instilled a true sense of despair, hopelessness, and existential panic in some demographics (Gen Z especially).

As we know, the narrative rests immutably on four pillars: i) climate change will devastate humanity, but ii) we surely can avert disaster, provided iii) we act immediately and unreservedly to iv) accede to carbon credits, supranational regulation, and a significant decline in quality of life.

Ironically, they've amped up (i) to the point where some demographics can't believe (ii), which is why various mouthpieces may be dragging out "more-realistic baselines make for better policy" at this cosmic moment in time.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's an editorial comment that's beside the point. The important story is the walk-back from use of the worst-case scenario as a baseline.
Click to expand...

If you read the article, it’s not a walk back. It’s just saying that creating mass hysteria by appealing to the worst case scenarios is not helpful, and to keep people like you from completely dismissing everything, we need to talk about more realistic goals. It’s more of a suggestion of how scientists can speak to the public on the issue in a helpful manner. That’s all.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Consensus claims are useless and boring. They have been wrong too many time over the centuries.

When you think this way, you tell us you have nothing but alarmism to offer.
Click to expand...

So said the captain of the Titanic... What other groups of scientists do you recommend we believe?
 
 
ataraxia said:
From very catastrophic to just catastrophic. That’s a long ways from your position which is that it’s not real.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that any level of catastrophic outcome requires high levels of feedbacks.
The 2XCO2 forcing warming number is about 1.1C, to get that number to an ECS of 3C, requires a feedback factor of 2.72.
So far in the empirical data, there is no evidence that any net positive feedback exists, and there should have been by now.
 
longview said:
Do you understand that any level of catastrophic outcome requires high levels of feedbacks.
The 2XCO2 forcing warming number is about 1.1C, to get that number to an ECS of 3C, requires a feedback factor of 2.72.
So far in the empirical data, there is no evidence that any net positive feedback exists, and there should have been by now.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this gobbledygook? Do you even understand what you are saying? It just sounds like someone who is trying very hard to sound all “sciency” to people who they believe don’t know anything. That may work on Fox News. but that’s about it.

If you think you have some breakthrough, publish it in a science journal.
 
ataraxia said:
I don’t see what any of this has to do with the science and facts of climate change.
Click to expand...
Considering you couldn't have read a quarter of what's in the links in the 60 seconds you spent between posting #108 and #110, this doesn't surprise me. :roll:

I get it. I wouldn't want to work my way through a wall of page-long posts either. But therein lies my lengthy explanation for why I'm skeptical of climate modeling. Any summary here would be unsatisfactory.
 
COTO said:
Considering you couldn't have read a quarter of what's in the links in the 60 seconds you spent between posting #108 and #110, this doesn't surprise me. :roll:

I get it. I wouldn't want to work my way through a wall of page-long posts either. But therein lies my lengthy explanation for why I'm skeptical of climate modeling. Any summary here would be unsatisfactory.
Click to expand...

What makes you think you have any qualifications to have any opinions on the science?

You can have opinions on what to do about the science. That’s fine. But unless you are a specialist in the field, with a doctorate in it and years of experience working at it, it seems rather presumptuous for you to act and talk like you’re some kind of expert in it.
 
ataraxia said:
Where are you getting this gobbledygook? Do you even understand what you are saying? It just sounds like someone who is trying very hard to sound all “sciency” to people who they believe don’t know anything. That may work on Fox News. but that’s about it.

If you think you have some breakthrough, publish it in a science journal.
Click to expand...
I am getting this from the alarmist sites like the GISS and the IPCC.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
I realize that the GISS data is dated, but they claim that doubling the CO2 level would cause an energy imbalance of
4 W/m2 (now revised down to 3.71 W/m2). This imbalance would force warming of about 1.1C.
If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2,
Click to expand...
This 1.1°C of warming would then cause feedbacks, that would amplify the warming by a feedback factor.
If the ECS were actually 3°C, then the feedback factor would have to be output divided by the input, or 3/1.1=2.72.
The entire concept of the greenhouse effect is based on the idea that Earth is 33°C than it would be if the atmosphere
were completely transparent.
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C.
Click to expand...
This 33°C is claimed to be the result of an energy imbalance of 150 W/m2.
In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.
Click to expand...
This is all documented in many sites,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
In the absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, ε would be unity, and TP would be 255 K.
The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere give a lower effective emissivity that requires an increase
of TP to about 288 K to maintain energy balance.
Click to expand...
For those who are counting, the difference between 255 K and 288K is ...33°C.
So if we double the CO2 level, it forces warming of about 1.1°C, But in theory there are positive feedbacks that push the warming much higher.
Any warming perturbation would activate the feedbacks, so we can see how past warming events have reacted.
The GISS site says that CO2 is responsible for 20% of the 150 W/m2 of imbalance, or ~30W/m2.
But wait, the GISS site also says,
If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the "feedbacks" are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests that this is what happens in the real world as well.
Click to expand...
Consider why the idea that 20% of 150W/m2 causing 33°C of warming, is not comparable
with the idea that a single doubling of CO2 would equal 20 W/m2 of imbalance?
It would take 8 doubling s of CO2 to reach pre industrial levels.
Were each doubling worth 20 W/m2, the energy imbalance would need to be at 160 W/m2,
when 20% of 150W/m2 is only 30 W/m2!
There may well be net positive feedbacks, but they cannot be at anywhere near the level suggested!
 
longview said:
I do not think we can model future climate at all!
I do think that simple calculations can expose some of the fallacies of those who
claim we can model future climate, from limited variables like CO2.
So again, I will ask you, where think the 2XCO2 value of 3.71W/m2 comes from?
Click to expand...

So you think people who spend their whole lives studying climate are just too dumb to understand your napkin? Come on. Where are the feedbacks on your napkin?
 
longview said:
I am getting this from the alarmist sites like the GISS and the IPCC.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
I realize that the GISS data is dated, but they claim that doubling the CO2 level would cause an energy imbalance of
4 W/m2 (now revised down to 3.71 W/m2). This imbalance would force warming of about 1.1C.

This 1.1°C of warming would then cause feedbacks, that would amplify the warming by a feedback factor.
If the ECS were actually 3°C, then the feedback factor would have to be output divided by the input, or 3/1.1=2.72.
The entire concept of the greenhouse effect is based on the idea that Earth is 33°C than it would be if the atmosphere
were completely transparent.

This 33°C is claimed to be the result of an energy imbalance of 150 W/m2.

This is all documented in many sites,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society

For those who are counting, the difference between 255 K and 288K is ...33°C.
So if we double the CO2 level, it forces warming of about 1.1°C, But in theory there are positive feedbacks that push the warming much higher.
Any warming perturbation would activate the feedbacks, so we can see how past warming events have reacted.
The GISS site says that CO2 is responsible for 20% of the 150 W/m2 of imbalance, or ~30W/m2.
But wait, the GISS site also says,

Consider why the idea that 20% of 150W/m2 causing 33°C of warming, is not comparable
with the idea that a single doubling of CO2 would equal 20 W/m2 of imbalance?
It would take 8 doubling s of CO2 to reach pre industrial levels.
Were each doubling worth 20 W/m2, the energy imbalance would need to be at 160 W/m2,
when 20% of 150W/m2 is only 30 W/m2!
There may well be net positive feedbacks, but they cannot be at anywhere near the level suggested!
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't know. Obviously you are going wrong somewhere here in your thinking. I don't know where. Have you asked anyone who knows anything about this stuff?
 
ataraxia said:
You can have opinions on what to do about the science. That’s fine. But unless you are a specialist in the field, with a doctorate in it and years of experience working at it, it seems rather presumptuous for you to act and talk like you’re some kind of expert in it.
Click to expand...
I have a doctorate and years (decades, in fact) of experience in a related field. :shrug:

If we're going to split this hair, why should any of us care about your opinion of the validity of the AGW consensus? Do you have any argument besides "It's a broad consensus, and so many brilliant minds having invested so much effort into modeling are unlikely to be wrong."? You didn't think we'd considered this?
 
ataraxia said:
Try googling “ why are German automobile sales dropping in 2019?” And see if the reasons have anything to do with the misleading stuff written in the NTZ article.

But witnessing the power of the will to believe is a marvel indeed!
Click to expand...

The NTZ post merely conveys the reporting of the cited (and linked) publications.
 
ataraxia said:
No it doesn’t. Does the summary say that even under the best case scenario, the consequences would still be catastrophic?
Click to expand...

"Catastrophic" is a propaganda word. The WUWT post accurately reports the walk-back and includes a link to the Nature article.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Catastrophic" is a propaganda word. The WUWT post accurately reports the walk-back and includes a link to the Nature article.
Click to expand...

Anyone seeking to confront a climate extremist need only look to their nearest denier.
 
ataraxia said:
If you read the article, it’s not a walk back. It’s just saying that creating mass hysteria by appealing to the worst case scenarios is not helpful, and to keep people like you from completely dismissing everything, we need to talk about more realistic goals. It’s more of a suggestion of how scientists can speak to the public on the issue in a helpful manner. That’s all.
Click to expand...

That is complete BS. Here is a paragraph from the Nature article.

". . . Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in RCP8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year5. Emission pathways to get to RCP8.5 generally require an unprecedented fivefold increase in coal use by the end of the century, an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves6. It is thought that global coal use peaked in 2013, and although increases are still possible, many energy forecasts expect it to flatline over the next few decades7. Furthermore, the falling cost of clean energy sources is a trend that is unlikely to reverse, even in the absence of new climate policies7. . . . "
 
Manc Skipper said:
Anyone seeking to confront a climate extremist need only look to their nearest denier.
Click to expand...

Denier is the word used to immediately shut down debate due to its obvious connotations. AGW extremists as a consequence use it with fervor :(
 
COTO said:
I have a doctorate and years (decades, in fact) of experience in a related field. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Then surely you know how science works: it is the most current consensus of experts working in that field. That's why any new science article has to go through a peer review process prior to publication in a real science journal. There are no national referenda on it.

If we're going to split this hair, why should any of us care about your opinion of the validity of the AGW consensus?
Click to expand...

Because that's how all science works: what is considered actionable science is just the consensus of experts working in that field. Why should this particular be any different?

Do you have any argument besides "It's a broad consensus, and so many brilliant minds having invested so much effort into modeling are unlikely to be wrong."? You didn't think we'd considered this?
Click to expand...

No, that's a pretty good enough argument. That's essentially how all science works. If one of the scientists wants to change or add something new, they have to change the minds of their fellow specialist colleagues first.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom