• 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!

Global Cooling Is Under Way

longview said:
It has nothing to do with what he said, but your statement.
"That’s in the period from 2016-2035. That’s not 0.3 degrees per decade."
which is incorrect! of course it is expected.
Click to expand...

Yes, that’s true.

Love how you jump in to correct a minor range statement, yet ignore the denier’s ridiculous claim.

Of course, it is expected.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, that’s true.

Love how you jump in to correct a minor range statement, yet ignore the denier’s ridiculous claim.

Of course, it is expected.
Click to expand...

It is not a minor correction, you were wrong!
The range from your own citation included the .3 C per decade rate, you claimed it did not.
Just to thorough, let's look at what you say were ridiculous claims.
Post # 94, I think, Sunsettommy said,
1. Warming rate predictions

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here.
Click to expand...
SO the IPCC FAR does estimate warming at .3 C per decade, so that cannot be the ridiculous claim,
He goes on the say the actual warming rate is between .12 and .19 C per decade.
Well the GISS shows .45 C of warming between 1990 and 2017, so .166 C per decade,
So the observed warming must not be the ridiculous claim.
I guess, you will just have to explain what he said the you found ridiculous?
 
longview said:
It is not a minor correction, you were wrong!
The range from your own citation included the .3 C per decade rate, you claimed it did not.
Just to thorough, let's look at what you say were ridiculous claims.
Post # 94, I think, Sunsettommy said,

SO the IPCC FAR does estimate warming at .3 C per decade, so that cannot be the ridiculous claim,
He goes on the say the actual warming rate is between .12 and .19 C per decade.
Well the GISS shows .45 C of warming between 1990 and 2017, so .166 C per decade,
So the observed warming must not be the ridiculous claim.
I guess, you will just have to explain what he said the you found ridiculous?
Click to expand...

IOW, the warming is pretty much on track with IPCC expectations, even back in 1990. And, we know that short term predictions like decadal ones are much more uncertain than longer term ones.

But his statements repeatedly say the IPCC is missing its predictions.

But you know this, and still don’t care, because...denier solidarity, I guess.
 
Threegoofs said:
IOW, the warming is pretty much on track with IPCC expectations, even back in 1990. And, we know that short term predictions like decadal ones are much more uncertain than longer term ones.

But his statements repeatedly say the IPCC is missing its predictions.

But you know this, and still don’t care, because...denier solidarity, I guess.
Click to expand...

Take off the blinders for a bit.
The predictions in 1990 was for .3 °C per decade,
the prediction (according to you #168) of AR5 was between 0.3 to 0.7°C between 2016 and 2035. (.157 to .368 °C per decade)
or inclusive of the .3°C per decade rate.
The observed warming is actually .166 °C per decade since 1990, so at the low end of their range.
As you keep saying, ECSs implied range is the mid point of the range between 1.5 and 4.5°C, or 3°C,
if that were true then the rate would be the mid point between the .157 to .368 °C per decade, or .262 °C per decade.
If they modeled on that prediction, their error would accumulate at a rate of .096 °C per decade.
So the warming is pretty much NOT on track with IPCC expectations.
 
longview said:
Take off the blinders for a bit.
The predictions in 1990 was for .3 °C per decade,
the prediction (according to you #168) of AR5 was between 0.3 to 0.7°C between 2016 and 2035. (.157 to .368 °C per decade)
or inclusive of the .3°C per decade rate.
The observed warming is actually .166 °C per decade since 1990, so at the low end of their range.
As you keep saying, ECSs implied range is the mid point of the range between 1.5 and 4.5°C, or 3°C,
if that were true then the rate would be the mid point between the .157 to .368 °C per decade, or .262 °C per decade.
If they modeled on that prediction, their error would accumulate at a rate of .096 °C per decade.
So the warming is pretty much NOT on track with IPCC expectations.
Click to expand...

Boom! Chukka-lukka-lukka.

:bomb:
 
longview said:
Take off the blinders for a bit.
The predictions in 1990 was for .3 °C per decade,
the prediction (according to you #168) of AR5 was between 0.3 to 0.7°C between 2016 and 2035. (.157 to .368 °C per decade)
or inclusive of the .3°C per decade rate.
The observed warming is actually .166 °C per decade since 1990, so at the low end of their range.
As you keep saying, ECSs implied range is the mid point of the range between 1.5 and 4.5°C, or 3°C,
if that were true then the rate would be the mid point between the .157 to .368 °C per decade, or .262 °C per decade.
If they modeled on that prediction, their error would accumulate at a rate of .096 °C per decade.
So the warming is pretty much NOT on track with IPCC expectations.
Click to expand...

You realize that the warming is not linear, right?
 
Threegoofs said:
You realize that the warming is not linear, right?
Click to expand...
According to the IPCC it is in the longer term, otherwise they would not be discussing
per decade rates.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You seem to be avoiding me.

Would you care to answer which you disagree with yet? [3]
Click to expand...

Have no reason to doubt much of what you say. If all this is true and not fixable we should stop doing this. Presumably there are some alternatives. We might also change countries practices of relying so much on export crops that they neglect growing food.

Assuming you believed in climate change as a human influenced threat, what would you suggest?
 
Sunsettommy said:
Trump is not a relevant factor because the AGW failures were known long before he became President, thus his alleged lies are irrelevant on the issue of Global Warming.

Many skeptics already counter bad/failed research by picking on the modeling failures of the IPCC. Warmists never accept the well demonstrated prediction/projection failures because that would destroy their entire belief system over a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window.

Warmists needs to grow up, stop fighting the hard evidence and get to work cleaning up real pollution, CO2 is a NOT pollutant!
Click to expand...

Why isn't the world listening?
 
Jack Hays said:
Nope. 2017 was cooler than 2016, and 2018 is on its way to being cooler still. With the sun approaching minimum, this should continue for quite a while.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays, you know that big ball of fiery plasma in the sky has little bearing on our Climate. It's about an inert gas, that makes up 0.04% of the Atmosphere, that's what drives Climate.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you seriously clueless of human nature?
Click to expand...

Obviously. But you still haven't answered the question. Did evil Soros pay off all the experts, magazines, 190 countries, etc.? Or were you referring to human nature having some politicians paid off by energy companies?

Seems to me human nature can affect all persons, even corporate ones.
 
Nickyjo said:
Obviously. But you still haven't answered the question. Did evil Soros pay off all the experts, magazines, 190 countries, etc.? Or were you referring to human nature having some politicians paid off by energy companies?

Seems to me human nature can affect all persons, even corporate ones.
Click to expand...

Which is more profitable:
Blame something "man" has "control" over, CO2 emissions. This allows political and financial gain...
Or blame the Sun, which... we can't do dick about.

Human nature.
 
Threegoofs said:
Shame on you for making fun of his English skills.
Click to expand...

Shame on you for pushing group think as science and trying to claim 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for "climate change". Which let's be honest here, the sheer number of people that buy into that is the greatest indictment of our failing education system I can think of.
 
Renae said:
Shame on you for pushing group think as science and trying to claim 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for "climate change". Which let's be honest here, the sheer number of people that buy into that is the greatest indictment of our failing education system I can think of.
Click to expand...

Yes. Those highly educated and trained scientists don’t know nearly as much as you, because you’re a product of the greatest high school education known to man.
 
RAMOSS said:
The average annual average is the more important number.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree.

When the night time is warmer, it doesn't affect anything of importance when it comes to people's lives. When the average increases by 2 degrees, but the hottest days are no hotter, who cares? Now when the hottest days are hotter, then you have more health issues caused by heat. This is when you have life that is affected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom