• 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!

Climate scientists give clear warning

Jack Hays said:
None of the three was climate change-related.
Click to expand...

Climate change have already made forest fires worst.

“Fires are natural in California: Many of its ecosystems, from the chaparral of Southern California to the northern pine forests, evolved to burn frequently. But since the 1980s, the size and ferocity of the fires that sweep across the state have trended upward. Fifteen of the 20 largest fires in California history have occurred since 2000.

The graphic above shows why: Most of the state’s hottest and driest years have occurred during the last two decades as well.

Over the past century, California has warmed by about three degrees Fahrenheit. That extra-warmed air sucks water out of plants and soils, leaving the trees, shrubs, and rolling grasslands of the state dry and primed to burn.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-change-california-wildfire/

You also have studies that show that hurricanes already becomes more destructive becaues of climate change.

“One research team’s results, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), found that in comparison to a typical 1950s hurricane, climate change likely increased Harvey’s seven-day rainfall by at least 19 percent. A separate study, published today in Environmental Research Letters (ERL), found similar results, showing that climate change boosted Harvey’s three-day rainfall by about 15 percent.

Both studies also found that climate change roughly tripled the odds of a Harvey-type storm.

“It is not news that climate change affects extreme precipitation, but our results indicate that the amount is larger than expected,” said Michael Wehner, a climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coauthored the GRL study, in a press release.”

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/climate-change-study-hurricane-harvey-flood/
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Climate change have already made forest fires worst.

“Fires are natural in California: Many of its ecosystems, from the chaparral of Southern California to the northern pine forests, evolved to burn frequently. But since the 1980s, the size and ferocity of the fires that sweep across the state have trended upward. Fifteen of the 20 largest fires in California history have occurred since 2000.

The graphic above shows why: Most of the state’s hottest and driest years have occurred during the last two decades as well.

Over the past century, California has warmed by about three degrees Fahrenheit. That extra-warmed air sucks water out of plants and soils, leaving the trees, shrubs, and rolling grasslands of the state dry and primed to burn.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-change-california-wildfire/

You also have studies that show that hurricanes already becomes more destructive becaues of climate change.

“One research team’s results, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), found that in comparison to a typical 1950s hurricane, climate change likely increased Harvey’s seven-day rainfall by at least 19 percent. A separate study, published today in Environmental Research Letters (ERL), found similar results, showing that climate change boosted Harvey’s three-day rainfall by about 15 percent.

Both studies also found that climate change roughly tripled the odds of a Harvey-type storm.

“It is not news that climate change affects extreme precipitation, but our results indicate that the amount is larger than expected,” said Michael Wehner, a climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coauthored the GRL study, in a press release.”

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/climate-change-study-hurricane-harvey-flood/
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]US Hurricane Landfalls 1900 – 2013[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Roger Pielke, Jr. – Center for Science and Technology Policy Research – University of Colorado at Boulder – Click to enlarge​
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Remember when we were told that wildfires would increase due to global warming? Never mind.[/h][FONT=&quot]This paper was just published in the Royal Society Biological Sciences journal. The takeaways: “Global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.” Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a…
[/FONT]
July 25, 2018 in Wildfires.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Yes temperature have changed in the past while the evidence is overwhelming that the warming we see now is because of manmade global warming from C02.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/

Also that our human societies are very vulnerable to climate changes and extreme weather. For example the 10 worst climate driven disasters during 2018 cost 85 billion dollars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davide...ters-of-2018-cost-us-85-billion/#5c9f6a412680

There manmade global warming will lead to climate driven disasters become more common and costlier. There you also will have a lot of other negative effects from manmade global warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-17/

While you can also combine action to combat manmade global warming and toxic pollutants with a strong economy. For example Sweden is one of the most sustainable countries in the world that implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995.

How Sweden Became the World?s Most Sustainable Country: Top 5 Reasons

While also ranking second on Forbes best country for Business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/

Also having countries, communinities, corporation and individuals leading the way in the transition away from fossil fuels have drastically reduced the cost of renewables. So that even Republican politcians are on a local level starting to see the benefits of renewable energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#631e530f3da7
Click to expand...

When a solar powered 747 takes flight, we can discuss the reliability and usefulness of renewables in industrial applications.

Until then, it's an interesting possibility for the future.

However, you have taken the leap from "what if" to "omigod"! The what if is "What if CO2 is the direct causal driver of warming".

The problem with this is that in the real world, this is not shown to be a direct causal driver.

You and others present this as a natural certainty and yet the certainty seems to not exist. Gravity is pretty certain on and around this planet in broad terms and can be demonstrated to have occurred in the past, in the real world, as it does today.

The Causal link between increased CO2 and runaway global warming is not so demonstrable. In the past, Scientists tell us that it was much warmer with much LOWER concentrations of CO2.

IF there is a direct, unbreakable causal connection, THEN this is impossible. Yet it happened. Care to explain?

http://climate4you.com/
<snip>
The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.


VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
<snip>
 
Bergslagstroll said:
I have provided links to reports published by the federal goverment under Donald Trump that statet that there are an urging need for action to combat manmade global warming. Can you provide any links to federal reports that state that manmade global warming isn't real? That Bush was president for eight years and Trump have been president for two years so they could have directed goverment funds to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence had existed.

I have also provided direct links to fossil fuel companies' websites there they states that manmade global warming is real. What reason can they have for doing that beside the overwhelming evidence for manmade global warming?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously asking that a negative be proven?

The onus of proof is on those that are demanding action to fight this thing that does not exist.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda is not evidence, it's a list of excuses.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Three of costliest disasters was in the US. Hurricane Florence with a estimated cost of 17 billions dollars, Hurricane Michael with a cost between 15 and 25 billions of dollars and the Camp Fire in California with a cost estimated to 7,5-10 billion dollars.

There climate related disasters will become more frequent, deadlier and costlier both in the US and the rest of the world.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/extrem...nsive-climate-driven-events-took-place-in-us/
Click to expand...

It's interesting that the cost of the disasters increases as the intelligence of the residents falls.

Hurricanes hit the coast. Without cities on the coast, no problem.

Fires burn the drought dried underbrush. Without 20 million people living in the Los Angeles area's drought dried underbrush, no problem.

When the evil white man arrived, the Native Americans did not live on the coasts or overpopulate areas that could not support the indigenous population.

We are working against nature and wondering why it doesn't work.

The simple truth of the whole thing is that we are fleas on a dog arguing about which way the dog should run.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Climate change have already made forest fires worst.

“Fires are natural in California: Many of its ecosystems, from the chaparral of Southern California to the northern pine forests, evolved to burn frequently. But since the 1980s, the size and ferocity of the fires that sweep across the state have trended upward. Fifteen of the 20 largest fires in California history have occurred since 2000.

The graphic above shows why: Most of the state’s hottest and driest years have occurred during the last two decades as well.

Over the past century, California has warmed by about three degrees Fahrenheit. That extra-warmed air sucks water out of plants and soils, leaving the trees, shrubs, and rolling grasslands of the state dry and primed to burn.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-change-california-wildfire/

You also have studies that show that hurricanes already becomes more destructive becaues of climate change.

“One research team’s results, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), found that in comparison to a typical 1950s hurricane, climate change likely increased Harvey’s seven-day rainfall by at least 19 percent. A separate study, published today in Environmental Research Letters (ERL), found similar results, showing that climate change boosted Harvey’s three-day rainfall by about 15 percent.

Both studies also found that climate change roughly tripled the odds of a Harvey-type storm.

“It is not news that climate change affects extreme precipitation, but our results indicate that the amount is larger than expected,” said Michael Wehner, a climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coauthored the GRL study, in a press release.”

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/climate-change-study-hurricane-harvey-flood/
Click to expand...

I highlighted an interesting part of your post.

They did not, presumably could not, accurately predict what actually happened.

In the real world, this demonstrates their lack of credibility.
 
Moderate71 said:
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236
Click to expand...

More hype from used car type climate change salesmen looking for big government funding boosts to their troubled life's work believing and promoting impossible fixes to fake problems based upon bad science predictions.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Three of costliest disasters was in the US. Hurricane Florence with a estimated cost of 17 billions dollars, Hurricane Michael with a cost between 15 and 25 billions of dollars and the Camp Fire in California with a cost estimated to 7,5-10 billion dollars.

There climate related disasters will become more frequent, deadlier and costlier both in the US and the rest of the world.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/extrem...nsive-climate-driven-events-took-place-in-us/
Click to expand...

The cost of sever storms hitting the coast will continue to rise.

This is because we keep building expensive things on the coast. And insuring them.

Sea level change has not happened to any significant extent.

Storms have in fact become less abundant.

You are streatching anything to fit your bankrupt naritive.
 
Moderate71 said:
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236
Click to expand...

Although I am a fan of Trump, I don't think he is taking this issue seriously enough.

I am convinced the base of this problem stems down to the population size. The more of us there are, the more natural space we require, the more resources we need, the more transport we need, and the more emissions we create. Animal farming takes up an enormous amount of space, and in it's self creates large amounts of emissions. Of course, there is the ethical debate regarding the breeding of animals so we can shoot a bullet through their head, but that's another argument for another day. Other than China, it appears that no government of any significant country wants to address the problem. We all know that the worlds population is ageing, and that in turn means we need more young people to even up the balance. However, those young people will also get old, and the problem get's worse and worse. I don't claim to have the answers, but I am aware there is a problem. What is frustrating is that governments know we have this problem, but none of them have the bottle to do something about it because they are so damn scared of upsetting people.
 
code1211 said:
Are you seriously asking that a negative be proven?

The onus of proof is on those that are demanding action to fight this thing that does not exist.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda is not evidence, it's a list of excuses.
Click to expand...

A start could be to agree on if global temperature are increasing, decreasing or stay the same among the people that deny manmade global warming. There on this forum you for example you have both those who believe in global cooling and those who acknolwedge global temperature increase but claim it has other causes.

There after that they could agree on what other factors that affect global temperature. While after many decades the people that deny manmade global warming havn't come that far.

Also Bush was president for eight years, Trump have been for two years while you have also have hade Republican controlled congress. So of course all those Republican could have directed federal funds to prove that manmade global warming was based of false data and conclusion. Something they havn't been able to do. Instead for example NASA countinue to study and inform about manmade global warming and it's negative effects.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
 
code1211 said:
Are you seriously asking that a negative be proven?

The onus of proof is on those that are demanding action to fight this thing that does not exist.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda is not evidence, it's a list of excuses.
Click to expand...

A start could be to agree on if global temperature are increasing, decreasing or stay the same among the people that deny manmade global warming. There on this forum you for example you have both those who believe in global cooling and those who acknowledge global temperature increasing but claim it has other causes.

There after that they could agree on what other factors that affect global temperature. While after many decades the people that deny manmade global warming haven't come that far.

Also Bush was president for eight years, Trump have been for two years while you have also have had Republican controlled congress. So of course all those Republican could have directed federal funds to prove that manmade global warming was based of false data and conclusions. Something they haven't been able to do. Instead for example NASA continue to study and inform about manmade global warming and it's negative effects.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
 
Bergslagstroll said:
A start could be to agree on if global temperature are increasing, decreasing or stay the same among the people that deny manmade global warming. There on this forum you for example you have both those who believe in global cooling and those who acknolwedge global temperature increase but claim it has other causes.

There after that they could agree on what other factors that affect global temperature. While after many decades the people that deny manmade global warming havn't come that far.

Also Bush was president for eight years, Trump have been for two years while you have also have hade Republican controlled congress. So of course all those Republican could have directed federal funds to prove that manmade global warming was based of false data and conclusion. Something they havn't been able to do. Instead for example NASA countinue to study and inform about manmade global warming and it's negative effects.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Click to expand...

Again, the global climate has been warmer, much warmer, than today at times in the past when CO2 was lower, much lower, than it is today.

If there is a direct, unbreakable causal connection between higher CO2 as the prime driver of Global temperature and Global Warming, how could this be?

Obama was president for 8 years. Global Temperature increased in his tenure and in fact recorded the highest global temperature ever. Is it possible Obama was addressing causes that have no impact on Global Temperature?

If that's not possible, then what is the cause of the exact opposite outcome from those predicted by his experts?

At the start of every ice Age, the start of every one of them without exception, the CO2 level of the interglacial ending was at its peak. How could this be?
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
Well I am sorry that you cannot comprehend the difference in acknowledging that pollution exists and defending my point that man is not the cause of climate change. Man certainly can pollute and poison the planet. I lived in the Los Angeles Area long enough to work that out. The smog was horrible. That smog certainly does cause breathing issues and the weather at hand, however it's not changing the climate. Climate change is a natural occurrence and has been going on since the planet was formed. Climate change effecting Earth is primarily related to solar activity(solar storms, sunspots, etc, on that great big round yellow object that heats the planet in the first place. It is also related to changing elyptical ordits as well as lunar influences.
Click to expand...


That you can’t comprehend the science of man’s major contribution to climate change puts you in the same class as flat-earthers. Like Trump knows more than the generals, you must know more than the scientists.
 
bluesmoke said:
That you can’t comprehend the science of man’s major contribution to climate change puts you in the same class as flat-earthers. Like Trump knows more than the generals, you must know more than the scientists.
Click to expand...
I am going to assume one, that you are not a climate scientist and you jumped on the man-made warming side motivated purely by modern political correctness and two that you lack the maturity to accept that there are opposing views on a very controversial subject. To put it bluntly, referring to those who do not accept your view as flat earthers makes you appear as a flat earther, yourself. There have been more warming and cooling cycles on this planet in it's long history then we can accurately count. To claim with alleged 100% certainly that the most recent warming cycle is man made without considering all natural causes that caused all the previous cycles is worse then what you consider flat earther. You are basically sticking your head in the sand.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
Let me guess: if we don't give them billions in research money and create more government control over the private sector, we're ****ed.

Am I close?
Click to expand...

No, let me guess. You don't have a clue about climatology and claim everything that you think is going to cost you money is a global conspiracy. Am I close?
 
ObamacareFail said:
I am going to assume one, that you are not a climate scientist and you jumped on the man-made warming side motivated purely by modern political correctness and two that you lack the maturity to accept that there are opposing views on a very controversial subject. To put it bluntly, referring to those who do not accept your view as flat earthers makes you appear as a flat earther, yourself. There have been more warming and cooling cycles on this planet in it's long history then we can accurately count. To claim with alleged 100% certainly that the most recent warming cycle is man made without considering all natural causes that caused all the previous cycles is worse then what you consider flat earther. You are basically sticking your head in the sand.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are you a climate scientist? Do you have any relevant qualifications in the sciences? My guess is 'no'. But of course every scientist who has studied AGW is a paid-for stooge of some nefarious left-wing scam, designed to separate you from your cash. Right?
 
PoS said:
Appeal to authority fallacy...
Click to expand...

WTF? I guess you're also highly qualified in the relevant sciences. So, let's have your rebuttal, along with links to the studies you conducted, methodology, observations and results. Thanks, I can't wait.
 
snakestretcher said:
WTF? I guess you're also highly qualified in the relevant sciences. So, let's have your rebuttal, along with links to the studies you conducted, methodology, observations and results. Thanks, I can't wait.
Click to expand...

In regards to what? That AGW is manmade? Its a hypothesis with no proof. Your side keeps claiming appeal to authority because of a bunch of "scientists" from the IPCC proclaim there is a link, yet show no evidence to prove it.
 
Moderate71 said:
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

Why scientists have modelled climate change right up to the year 2300
Click to expand...

Not to be an anti alarmist but I have seen this same claim now for 60 years. Every time it doesn't happen, the date gets moved. If these guys are such experts, how do they get it wrong every time?
 
PoS said:
In regards to what? That AGW is manmade? Its a hypothesis with no proof. Your side keeps claiming appeal to authority because of a bunch of "scientists" from the IPCC proclaim there is a link, yet show no evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...

I don't have a 'side'. This is no more a political issue than a tsunami or a hurricane. There is plenty of evidence available to you, but you have to want to review it. I'm guessing you haven't bothered and don't want to either. Too hard for you to understand? Never mind; next time it snows you can say, 'look, no global warming', and convince yourself, because you evidently know far more than accepted science does. I love conservatives; they have this charming, child-like naivete.
 
Condor060 said:
Not to be an anti alarmist but I have seen this same claim now for 60 years. Every time it doesn't happen, the date gets moved. If these guys are such experts, how do they get it wrong every time?
Click to expand...

How many times did the Wright brothers get it wrong, until they got it right? How many times did Babbage get it wrong until his first 'Difference Engine' computer worked? Every scientific process goes through trial and error. It's how science works-unlike 'god did it, case closed'.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
I don't have a 'side'. This is no more a political issue than a tsunami or a hurricane. There is plenty of evidence available to you, but you have to want to review it. I'm guessing you haven't bothered and don't want to either. Too hard for you to understand? Never mind; next time it snows you can say, 'look, no global warming', and convince yourself, because you evidently know far more than accepted science does. I love conservatives; they have this charming, child-like naivete.
Click to expand...

Show the evidence of irrefutable manmade AGW then.
 
PoS said:
In regards to what? That AGW is manmade? Its a hypothesis with no proof. Your side keeps claiming appeal to authority because of a bunch of "scientists" from the IPCC proclaim there is a link, yet show no evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing; there is no such thing in science as 'proof'. There are hypotheses which, in lay terms you'll understand, are 'best guess' until they are disproved. Einsteins theory of relativity is called a theory for precisely that reason. Nothing in science is ever 100% settled; that's how science works. If it didn't you would still be doing calculations on an abacus because that was the best counting method available.
Here's some homework: Scientific method - Wikipedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom