• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Knowledge systems from science to religion Climate religion

gmeyers1944 said:
A lot of people who claim to be climate scientists and endorse A G W, are not that.
Click to expand...
lol

OK, I just grabbed a bunch of recent articles from Nature (one of the top journals, in case you don't know). Here are some of the authors. You tell me which ones are not legit.

Paul Spence
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales

Ryan M. Holmes
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New South Wales

Andrew McC. Hogg
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University

Stephen M. Griffies
NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Kial D. Stewart
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University

Mohammad S. Masnadi
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University

Adam R. Brandt
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University

Christian M. Grams
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, (Switzerland)

Remo Beerli
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (Switzerland)

Stefan Pfenninger
Climate Policy Group, Institute for Environmental Decisions (Switzerland)

Iain Staffell
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London

Heini Wernli
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (Switzerland)
 
ataraxia said:
Actually even the scientists working for Exxon agree that global warming is mostly man made and dangerous.
Click to expand...

They tried to cover up that study too. Would McDonald's pay to stop a ban on hamburgers? The oil conglomerates are funding denialists all over the world.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
Is that a confession that they are phonies?
Click to expand...

No, it's a confession that there are as many climate scientists who deny AGW as there are biologists who deny evolution. There are always a handful of kooks and/or charlatans in every profession. Most of the scientists who are now denying AGW are actually the exact same individuals who had denied the link between tobacco smoke and cancer.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, thing is, you are just rejecting all evidence.. which is your pattern. Models estimate between 9 to 24 inches

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era
Click to expand...

So you have actually presented the numbers. Great!

It would have been nie if you had quoted from the sources but...

So given that you think that the maximum threat is a 2 foot sea level rise by 2100, which local council do you think will need to spend more on increased sea defences than they spend on traffic lights?

I fully accept the range of sea level rise as being the reasonable end of the scientic consensus. I am happy to fully accept these numbers for the purposes of this debate. Where I disagree is of purely accademic interest and has no public policy impact.
 
Visbek said:
As already noted: Global warming will increase sea levels, which will cause significant damage to populations around the world -- as the vast majority of people live in coastal areas.

[loads of random stuff about things that you have bnot generally quoted from and which are not the mechanism between warming and something bad happening]

Keep in mind that traffic lights these days are cheap. An entire traffic light system for a small town can cost $300k, and lasts 15-20 years. I.e. without realizing it, you've set a very low bar.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Sandy did $65 billion in damage. A 1% increase in the damage done by a storm like Sandy is the cost equivalent to whole new traffic light systems for over 2,000 small cities. That's not including the cost in human lives and disruption -- e.g. the lower half of Manhattan losing power for over a week.

So yes, even the lower estimates of GMSL increase due to human activity will cost far, far, FAR more than the cost of traffic lights for coastal cities.



Yup, I'm confident in these views; and that confidence is based on the science.
Click to expand...

!!!!!
Yes it is a very low bar!!!!!! That is the idea!!!!! How slow can you be????

Given that Ramoss has figures of up to 2 feet how do you think your 2m number works?

How much ice do you think has to melt for that to happen?

Do you think it is at all likely to do so?

Given that the claim is very extreme can you describe, in YOUR OWN WORDS, the amount of energy needed to be absorbed by ice sheets, the number of days that the temperatujre is above zero for over these ice sheets and the general energy budget stuff around this mechanism?
 
ataraxia said:
That's odd. It's like the American Heart Association saying you should not be eating too much fried foods, and you telling me you don't care what they say. You want to know details of the science from me, with all the bad things that I think can happen if you do. I am not sure what you would accomplish by ignoring the experts in the field on the subject and trying to listen to me.

I am no scientist. I am quoting NASA on the science. If you trust Sean Hannity or something over NASA on the physics and chemistry behind climate change, then that is a dangerously irremediable problem.
Click to expand...

The thing is that as I am able to check some of the things I am told on this subject and find them to be wrong I grow suspicious.

I understand that adding up how much water is flowing out of Greenland vs the claimed ice mass loss and the level of snowfall is beyond many here but as a plumber/builder I have to be able to do basic sums.

Additionally my low level of physics knowledge allows me to use day length and rotational dynamics (scary sounding name for easy physics) to show that the poles are gaining mass.

I have heard of how WWII planes are now burried under 70m++ of ice. Not exposed by the melting of it.

I know that the tents used by the teams getting tthe ice cores from Greenland have to be moved very often because they will otherwise be overwhelmed by snow fall. Given that they maintain the temperature inside them at below zero they should be on pillars of ice if there was net melting.

Basic stuff but easy to understand for one such as me. You can trust NASA which can lie but I will trust stuff I can check and not trust those who can lie when they tell me that the sky is pink.
 
iguanaman said:
First of all you show a basic misunderstanding of the topic you started. No one wants to reduce CO2. We want to reduce the amount of FOSSIL carbon that we release in the atmosphere. We have been releasing billions of tons of Carbon that for millions of years has been trapped in the Earth and not part of the natural cycle. Understanding that basic fact is vital to any discussion of AGW.
Click to expand...

There certainly are those who wish to return CO2 levels to pre-industrial amounts.

Generally the Paris agreement etc is about reducing the emmissions of CO2.

Do you have some sort of idea that fossil carbon has different properties to other carbon when it is in the air?
 
Tim the plumber said:
There certainly are those who wish to return CO2 levels to pre-industrial amounts.

Generally the Paris agreement etc is about reducing the emmissions of CO2.

Do you have some sort of idea that fossil carbon has different properties to other carbon when it is in the air?
Click to expand...

No, the agreement is about reducing emissions of fossil carbon. I explained the difference if you could read. Do you think adding billions of tons of carbon that was not in the in environment for millions of years will have no effect? Studies of our climate BEFORE all that carbon was sequestered say it will have a dramatic effect.

The tropical Arctic
Another stretch of Earth history that scientists count among the planet’s warmest occurred about 55-56 million years ago. The episode is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

Stretching from about 66-34 million years ago, the Paleocene and Eocene were the first geologic epochs following the end of the Mesozoic Era. (The Mesozoic—the age of dinosaurs—was itself an era punctuated by "hothouse" conditions.) Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. The transition between the two epochs around 56 million years ago was marked by a rapid spike in global temperature.
Click to expand...

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Yes it is a very low bar!!!!!! That is the idea!!!!! How slow can you be????
Click to expand...
:roll:


Given that Ramoss has figures of up to 2 feet how do you think your 2m number works?
Click to expand...
:roll:

Read it again.
NOAA predicts 0.3 to 2.5 meters of GMSL rise by 2100 (most likely 0.5 - 1m)
DOD makes similar predictions (0.2 to 2.0m)

If you actually read the papers, you'll understand that they're discussing a variety of scenarios. RAMOSS' 2 feet is pretty much the same as my summarizing NOAA as "most likely 0.5 - 1m."


How much ice do you think has to melt for that to happen?
Click to expand...
To cause 2.5m of GMSL rise? I'd guess around 1 million cubic kilometers.

That's about 1/3 of Greenland's total ice sheet. Or, and I may be wrong about the Earth's total ice volume: I believe that's around 1/50 of the Earth's ice.


Do you think it is at all likely to do so?
Click to expand...
"At all"?

NOAA puts the most extreme consequences at around 0.1%. Again, NOAA thinks 0.5m is pretty much a lock, and somewhere between 0.5 and 1m seems quite likely.

And yes... 0.5m of sea level rise will cost a LOT more than your vague inquiry about traffic lights. As I said earlier, Hurricane Sandy alone did $65 billion in damage and killed around 120 people. It's forced residents to rebuild homes to new standards, to surrender their property altogether, and forced an update to flood maps which increases flood insurance premiums all up and down the US East Coast.

If storms of that magnitude become a little more frequent, or slightly more intense? Yep, that's gonna cost a LOT more than replacing traffic lights once every 20 years.


Given that the claim is very extreme can you describe, in YOUR OWN WORDS, the amount of energy needed to be absorbed by ice sheets, the number of days that the temperatujre is above zero for over these ice sheets and the general energy budget stuff around this mechanism?[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
sigh

I've already done this. You asked me about it -- and ignored the answer.

Roughly speaking, it takes 417 kJ to increase the temperature of 1 kg (1 liter) of ice from 0° C to 20° C. Let's use this as a high estimate.

All of the ice in Greenland is estimated at 2.85E18 kg cubed; if it all melted, sea levels would rise an estimated 23 feet (7.6m). To increase sea levels by 10", we need to melt 1.03260869565214E17 kg of ice.

That requires 4.30597826086942E22 joules.

NASA puts our current imbalance at 0.58 W/m2 during the latest solar minimum. The Earth is 510 trillion m2, approximately half exposed to the sun at any given time. That's 1.479E14 joules per second, or 1.277856E19 per day. (This is higher than the previous napkin-math estimate of 1.0612512E22 trapped per day, so I might not have been too far off.)

I'm getting 3,369 days, or 9 years, to trap 4.30597826086942E22 joules. If we say that 5% of the energy is absorbed by Greenland's glaciers, it'd take 180 years.

And that is with no reduction in energy radiated into space.

I have no doubt that these numbers are off -- I do not claim to be a climate scientist. However, I don't think I'm off by entire orders of magnitude, and there is already evidence of significant glacial retreat in Greenland and elsewhere. Rather, I'm simply showing that the amounts of energy we're talking about, and the accompanying predictions, are not beyond all reason.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The thing is that as I am able to check some of the things I am told on this subject and find them to be wrong I grow suspicious.
Click to expand...
Riiiiiiight


I understand that adding up how much water is flowing out of Greenland vs the claimed ice mass loss and the level of snowfall is beyond many here but as a plumber/builder I have to be able to do basic sums.
Click to expand...
...and then you don't show any math at all. Impressive.


Additionally my low level of physics knowledge allows me to use day length and rotational dynamics (scary sounding name for easy physics) to show that the poles are gaining mass.
Click to expand...
What the what?

Where exactly is this wondrous physics paper? Why haven't any empirical observations demonstrated that the poles are gaining mass? You chided other people demanding "numbers" and "science stuff," and you ignore empirical research?


I have heard of how WWII planes are now burried under 70m++ of ice. Not exposed by the melting of it.
Click to expand...
What the...?

Who told you this? Do you even understand that glaciers flow like rivers, and that glacial movements in Europe don't mean that all ice around the globe is increasing?

You do know we have empirical evidence of glacial retreat, right?


I know that the tents used by the teams getting tthe ice cores from Greenland have to be moved very often because they will otherwise be overwhelmed by snow fall. Given that they maintain the temperature inside them at below zero they should be on pillars of ice if there was net melting.
Click to expand...
Uh... no, no, that isn't even remotely how it works.

We know that Greenland's glaciers are already in retreat. That is not disproven because it snows in Greenland.


Basic stuff but easy to understand for one such as me. You can trust NASA which can lie but I will trust stuff I can check and not trust those who can lie when they tell me that the sky is pink.
Click to expand...
Or, you can make assertions based on no science whatsoever, and rely on vague stories about snow in Greenland and planes stuck in glaciers.

I find it stunning that you insist everyone else show their work and explain the mechanisms and the math, while you hold your own beliefs to pretty much the lowest standards possible. Shocked and stunned.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
There certainly are those who wish to return CO2 levels to pre-industrial amounts.

Generally the Paris agreement etc is about reducing the emmissions of CO2.

Do you have some sort of idea that fossil carbon has different properties to other carbon when it is in the air?
Click to expand...

iguanaman said:
No, the agreement is about reducing emissions of fossil carbon. I explained the difference if you could read. Do you think adding billions of tons of carbon that was not in the in environment for millions of years will have no effect? Studies of our climate BEFORE all that carbon was sequestered say it will have a dramatic effect.
Click to expand...

Dear God!!!

Read the bit which I said. It says what you think it does not say.

Again, do you think that CO2 from fossil fuel burning has a different effect in the air than CO2 from breathing out products of respiration or CO2 from volcanic emmissions?
 
Visbek said:
:roll:



:roll:

Read it again.
NOAA predicts 0.3 to 2.5 meters of GMSL rise by 2100 (most likely 0.5 - 1m)
DOD makes similar predictions (0.2 to 2.0m)

If you actually read the papers, you'll understand that they're discussing a variety of scenarios. RAMOSS' 2 feet is pretty much the same as my summarizing NOAA as "most likely 0.5 - 1m."



To cause 2.5m of GMSL rise? I'd guess around 1 million cubic kilometers.

That's about 1/3 of Greenland's total ice sheet. Or, and I may be wrong about the Earth's total ice volume: I believe that's around 1/50 of the Earth's ice.



"At all"?

NOAA puts the most extreme consequences at around 0.1%. Again, NOAA thinks 0.5m is pretty much a lock, and somewhere between 0.5 and 1m seems quite likely.

And yes... 0.5m of sea level rise will cost a LOT more than your vague inquiry about traffic lights. As I said earlier, Hurricane Sandy alone did $65 billion in damage and killed around 120 people. It's forced residents to rebuild homes to new standards, to surrender their property altogether, and forced an update to flood maps which increases flood insurance premiums all up and down the US East Coast.

If storms of that magnitude become a little more frequent, or slightly more intense? Yep, that's gonna cost a LOT more than replacing traffic lights once every 20 years.



sigh

I've already done this. You asked me about it -- and ignored the answer.

Roughly speaking, it takes 417 kJ to increase the temperature of 1 kg (1 liter) of ice from 0° C to 20° C. Let's use this as a high estimate.

All of the ice in Greenland is estimated at 2.85E18 kg cubed; if it all melted, sea levels would rise an estimated 23 feet (7.6m). To increase sea levels by 10", we need to melt 1.03260869565214E17 kg of ice.

That requires 4.30597826086942E22 joules.

NASA puts our current imbalance at 0.58 W/m2 during the latest solar minimum. The Earth is 510 trillion m2, approximately half exposed to the sun at any given time. That's 1.479E14 joules per second, or 1.277856E19 per day. (This is higher than the previous napkin-math estimate of 1.0612512E22 trapped per day, so I might not have been too far off.)

I'm getting 3,369 days, or 9 years, to trap 4.30597826086942E22 joules. If we say that 5% of the energy is absorbed by Greenland's glaciers, it'd take 180 years.

And that is with no reduction in energy radiated into space.

I have no doubt that these numbers are off -- I do not claim to be a climate scientist. However, I don't think I'm off by entire orders of magnitude, and there is already evidence of significant glacial retreat in Greenland and elsewhere. Rather, I'm simply showing that the amounts of energy we're talking about, and the accompanying predictions, are not beyond all reason.
Click to expand...

OK, so you think that all the additional energy from global warming will all go directly into the ice sheets.

You are unwilling to think about the mechanics of the situation in which the ice actually is.

Try doing the numbers with 0.58 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] over Greenland's ice sheet for 4 weeks of summer with a 90% albedo. Then consider the 0.5m to 1.5m+ snow fal anually.

Hey. we are actually making progress. Numbers and such.

Then we can look at the impact on a particular place in the world.

Note that any huricane that has happened and caused damage has done it before this supposed sea level rise. So that is a base line, the additional costs are the only ones that will count.
 
Visbek said:
Riiiiiiight

...and then you don't show any math at all. Impressive.

What the what?

Where exactly is this wondrous physics paper? Why haven't any empirical observations demonstrated that the poles are gaining mass? You chided other people demanding "numbers" and "science stuff," and you ignore empirical research?

What the...?

Who told you this? Do you even understand that glaciers flow like rivers, and that glacial movements in Europe don't mean that all ice around the globe is increasing?

You do know we have empirical evidence of glacial retreat, right?

Uh... no, no, that isn't even remotely how it works.

We know that Greenland's glaciers are already in retreat. That is not disproven because it snows in Greenland.

Or, you can make assertions based on no science whatsoever, and rely on vague stories about snow in Greenland and planes stuck in glaciers.

I find it stunning that you insist everyone else show their work and explain the mechanisms and the math, while you hold your own beliefs to pretty much the lowest standards possible. Shocked and stunned.
Click to expand...

Careful, you're arguing with a very smart internet forum scientist who doesn't want to waste his precious brilliance on publishing his findings and collecting massive fame and fortune, he'd rather change one mind at a time on DP.

Tim the plumber said:
Numbers. Mechanism. Science stuff. Not sound bites. Bye bye.
Click to expand...

Publish your findings and expose the liberal conspiracy that has taken hold of all the world's scientists, collect your Nobel prize, and spend the rest of your life having a super model slurp champagne off your nuts. Or just keep ranting on an internet forum about how much science you do.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
Riiiiiiight



...and then you don't show any math at all. Impressive.



What the what?

Where exactly is this wondrous physics paper? Why haven't any empirical observations demonstrated that the poles are gaining mass? You chided other people demanding "numbers" and "science stuff," and you ignore empirical research?



What the...?

Who told you this? Do you even understand that glaciers flow like rivers, and that glacial movements in Europe don't mean that all ice around the globe is increasing?

You do know we have empirical evidence of glacial retreat, right?



Uh... no, no, that isn't even remotely how it works.

We know that Greenland's glaciers are already in retreat. That is not disproven because it snows in Greenland.



Or, you can make assertions based on no science whatsoever, and rely on vague stories about snow in Greenland and planes stuck in glaciers.

I find it stunning that you insist everyone else show their work and explain the mechanisms and the math, while you hold your own beliefs to pretty much the lowest standards possible. Shocked and stunned.
Click to expand...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...length-and-ice-melt.html?highlight=day+length

For the rotational mechanics bit.

The snowfall(precipitation) over Greenland is 821mm https://en.climate-data.org/location/132922/ .

Area of Greenland 2.166 million km[SUP]2[/SUP]. So total precipitation is 1780 km[SUP]3[/SUP]/year.

Flow rate of Mississippi is 16790m[SUP]3[/SUP]/s so 43.5 km[SUP]3[/SUP] per 30 day month.

So you will need 40 Mississippi sized rivers to flow out of Greenland during it's 30 day summer, flowing with water or ice, to break even on ice mass.

Where are they?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Careful, you're arguing with a very smart internet forum scientist who doesn't want to waste his precious brilliance on publishing his findings and collecting massive fame and fortune, he'd rather change one mind at a time on DP.



Publish your findings and expose the liberal conspiracy that has taken hold of all the world's scientists, collect your Nobel prize, and spend the rest of your life having a super model slurp champagne off your nuts. Or just keep ranting on an internet forum about how much science you do.
Click to expand...

To get a paper published t has to be profound. That is clever and new.

The bleeding obvious cannot get published in a science journal.

Given my low level of science it is only possible for me to do the bleeding obvious. So the above will not get published in any science journal.
 
Tim the plumber said:
To get a paper published t has to be profound. That is clever and new.
The bleeding obvious cannot get published in a science journal.
Given my low level of science it is only possible for me to do the bleeding obvious. So the above will not get published in any science journal.
Click to expand...

So we've established A) your science is very low level and B) your ideas don't have enough merit to be published. It seems to me like science is working exactly the way it's supposed to. Really it's because the global liberal conspiracy has control over all of the scientists and is preventing you from getting the cold hard truth out, right?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So we've established A) your science is very low level and B) your ideas don't have enough merit to be published. It seems to me like science is working exactly the way it's supposed to. Really it's because the global liberal conspiracy has control over all of the scientists and is preventing you from getting the cold hard truth out, right?
Click to expand...

Again, you appeal to authority.

You argue against the religious here.

Can you not see that you are using the same arguments that they use when you challenge them?

Discuss the snowfall over Greenland. The impact of a 2foot high sea level rise on a specific coastal community etc.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Again, you appeal to authority.
You argue against the religious here.
Can you not see that you are using the same arguments that they use when you challenge them?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm arguing against the religious and for science. You admit that you have nothing of value to present to the scientific process, yet are dead-set in keeping your self-invented world view despite all evidence to the contrary. So basically religion.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, I'm arguing against the religious and for science. You admit that you have nothing of value to present to the scientific process, yet are dead-set in keeping your self-invented world view despite all evidence to the contrary. So basically religion.
Click to expand...

No. The thing with science is that you have to argue with more than just your own emotion. You have to present arguments with supporting evidence. I have done so and all you do is attack me. You will have to face the situation that you have not looked at the numbers about Greenland above. That to do so will rock your faith.

This thread is about the way science has replaced religion but is often thought about in religious ways. You are showing a prime exapmle of that. Constantly refering to authority to avoid doing the thinking yourself.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No. The thing with science is that you have to argue with more than just your own emotion. You have to present arguments with supporting evidence. I have done so and all you do is attack me. You will have to face the situation that you have not looked at the numbers about Greenland above. That to do so will rock your faith.

This thread is about the way science has replaced religion but is often thought about in religious ways. You are showing a prime exapmle of that. Constantly refering to authority to avoid doing the thinking yourself.
Click to expand...

Ok, present your arguments and supporting evidence to the scientific community, have it peer reviewed, and change the world. That's how science works. Religion is a man masturbating in a pool of his own ignorance, dead set on keeping his own world view contrary to reality. IE: Most of your threads on climate change.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Ok, present your arguments and supporting evidence to the scientific community, have it peer reviewed, and change the world. That's how science works. Religion is a man masturbating in a pool of his own ignorance, dead set on keeping his own world view contrary to reality. IE: Most of your threads on climate change.
Click to expand...

Have you read the post about Greenland ice mass?

It would never be published as it is the utterly obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom