• 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 Warming is Worse than we Thought

Tim the plumber said:

BRING OUT THE DETAILS!!!

Let's see them. Explain them. It should be an ideal opportunity for you lot to make your case!
Click to expand...

Typical Truther logic. "You gotta read every CT blog I post, but I don't have to read any real information. I'll just make you present your case 100 times and act like a moron every time."

Keep demanding people read the garbage you shill and refusing to read anything real.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's just another datum in the body of evidence.
Click to expand...

Adding to the body of evidence that you copy and paste crap from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs?

Haven't we got enough evidence yet? Thousands and thousands of your posts of it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Blog posts compelled the corrections to Resplandy et al.
Click to expand...

Doesn't justify tens of thousands of copied and pasted utter crap posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.
 
ecofarm said:
Typical Truther logic. "You gotta read every CT blog I post, but I don't have to read any real information. I'll just make you present your case 100 times and act like a moron every time."

Keep demanding people read the garbage you shill and refusing to read anything real.
Click to expand...

It should be an ideal set up for you to present your case.

You should be taking the opportunity to floor the other side with the clear picture of what the trouble is.

Each time I get half a chance to talk about how many millions are dying due to the use of food as fuel I do so. That you run away from this says it all.
 
Threegoofs said:
You seem oddly convinced that unless I know the data, it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...

I do not expect you to know any data. I expect you to understand what it is you are talking about. To be able to explain why there is going to be a problem in your own words and then to back this up with some sort of science that shows how it is going to happen and to what extent.

Should be easy.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s really weird how you have one, specific burning question that you ask over and over and over.

And then, when it’s pointed out where that question is asked, in great detail, you either disparage the person answering your question with fantastical ideas that somehow, the person hasn’t read it (why the **** does that matter anyway? ) or when people point out the multiple things, you dismiss it as too much information.

These are the actions of a denier, not a skeptic. A denier dismisses or ignores all information that contradicts his established viewpoint, and you keep doing that repeatedly.

It’s quite sad, really.
Click to expand...

A denier is someone who never believed Al Gore's chicken little predictions of dire consequences of a failure to dump billions more American dollars into the global warming pseudo science enterprise and its associated business ventures.
 
Tim the plumber said:
There are no deniers of AGW here who are not mad.

I am a Skeptic. That is my position is that I see no problem with a slightly warmer world. I frequently ask for anybody to explain how the predicted worste case scenario will actually cause any significant trouble. I demand that specific locations and specific problems be explained and as yet nobody has come up with anything better than the area of Maple syrup production moving North a bit.

v = fl is the equasion of a wave. Velocity equals frequency times wavelength. Sort of by definition. If you are on an oil rig and measure the way a wave goes by then the time it takes for the next peak to appear after the last is the inverse of the velocity and the distance between the peaks is the wavelength.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your explanation of v=f*lambda,and to know you're not some AGW-denier nutcase. I put them in the same category as other willfully ignorant science deniers like Creationists, Anti-Vaxxers, anti-GMO activists, etc. They're all excellent examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I spent 2 years in northern Canada. It was the longest decade of my life. I DETEST snow.I hate cold weather. Even in Indianapolis where I now live, I sometimes secretly wish AGW would hurry the hell up, especially considering we were part of a sub-tropical inland sea throughout much of the Jurassic and Cretaceous.

It's not that I have a problem with a slightly warmer world. I think the real problems result from the rapidity of the rise, and the effects it will not only have on civilization in terms of coastal flooding during hurricanes, shifting rainfall patterns and changes in agriculture -- but also on the other animals with whom we share this planet. Already we've had such a major impact on this planet that hundreds of millions of years from now, our epoch will be an obvious planet wide extinction event. I don't think we can ethically defend our carelessness anymore.

I also worry about unforeseen things,like the melting of methane-rich permafrost --especially since CH4 is around 25 times more potent than CO2. While a Clathrate-Gun scenario is currently deemed unlikely, we should be careful when we're not really sure about the consequences of our actions.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
Thanks for your explanation of v=f*lambda,and to know you're not some AGW-denier nutcase. I put them in the same category as other willfully ignorant science deniers like Creationists, Anti-Vaxxers, anti-GMO activists, etc. They're all excellent examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I spent 2 years in northern Canada. It was the longest decade of my life. I DETEST snow.I hate cold weather. Even in Indianapolis where I now live, I sometimes secretly wish AGW would hurry the hell up, especially considering we were part of a sub-tropical inland sea throughout much of the Jurassic and Cretaceous.

It's not that I have a problem with a slightly warmer world. I think the real problems result from the rapidity of the rise, and the effects it will not only have on civilization in terms of coastal flooding during hurricanes, shifting rainfall patterns and changes in agriculture -- but also on the other animals with whom we share this planet. Already we've had such a major impact on this planet that hundreds of millions of years from now, our epoch will be an obvious planet wide extinction event. I don't think we can ethically defend our carelessness anymore.

I also worry about unforeseen things,like the melting of methane-rich permafrost --especially since CH4 is around 25 times more potent than CO2. While a Clathrate-Gun scenario is currently deemed unlikely, we should be careful when we're not really sure about the consequences of our actions.
Click to expand...

You will find that the level of science understanding amongst the Skeptics here is very much higher than almost all of the Alarmists.

You say that the speed of the temperature increse is the worry. During the very limited period of us having thermometers we have observed more rapid warming that the projected worst case. That is the central ngland temperature record, the oldest we have, has periods when this happened. It was a good thing that the earth came out of the little ice age. I am not aware of anything bad happening.

Nature is very tough.

The extinctions happening now are almost all extinctions of species on islands. Fair enough it is us that is causing them not to be safe from the competition of the rest of the world but...

There cannot be any problem with methane. It does not hang around in the atmosphere long enough to cause any problem. It reacts with oxygen very quickly. Very little permafrost can melt each year due to the slow rate of increas in temperature and that almost all of it is caused by climates so cold that it will have to be an extremely hot period, even hotter than the Holocene Optimal during the early bronze age which was warmer than tody.

Under sea methane is trapped there by pressure and temperature. It is impossible to warm the ocean due to the way water's density works, max at 4c. This makes the circulation to the deep ocean happen at the same temperature always untill there in no cold ocean anywhere in teh world. That is an ocean with a surface temperature of less than 4c. It will, assuming the IPCC's predictions, be under more water pressure if there is any sea level rise.

How confident are you at doing very basic maths? If you are confident of your own ability then you will be able to see why there just is not any problem from all this hype.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You will find that the level of science understanding amongst the Skeptics here is very much higher than almost all of the Alarmists.

You say that the speed of the temperature increse is the worry. During the very limited period of us having thermometers we have observed more rapid warming that the projected worst case. That is the central ngland temperature record, the oldest we have, has periods when this happened. It was a good thing that the earth came out of the little ice age. I am not aware of anything bad happening.

Nature is very tough.

The extinctions happening now are almost all extinctions of species on islands. Fair enough it is us that is causing them not to be safe from the competition of the rest of the world but...

There cannot be any problem with methane. It does not hang around in the atmosphere long enough to cause any problem. It reacts with oxygen very quickly. Very little permafrost can melt each year due to the slow rate of increas in temperature and that almost all of it is caused by climates so cold that it will have to be an extremely hot period, even hotter than the Holocene Optimal during the early bronze age which was warmer than tody.

Under sea methane is trapped there by pressure and temperature. It is impossible to warm the ocean due to the way water's density works, max at 4c. This makes the circulation to the deep ocean happen at the same temperature always untill there in no cold ocean anywhere in teh world. That is an ocean with a surface temperature of less than 4c. It will, assuming the IPCC's predictions, be under more water pressure if there is any sea level rise.

How confident are you at doing very basic maths? If you are confident of your own ability then you will be able to see why there just is not any problem from all this hype.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about what will happen in my lifetime,nor that of my kids or (future) grand kids. I'm worried about the very long term impacts -- thousands of years from now. Already stopping the rise at less than 2C over the next century seems unlikely. The PETM extinction involved a rise of just 5-8C over 200,000 years (Bowen et al, 2015).

We're being careless, which is a really dumb thing to do when you look at the geological history of our planet.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
I'm not worried about what will happen in my lifetime,nor that of my kids or (future) grand kids. I'm worried about the very long term impacts -- thousands of years from now. Already stopping the rise at less than 2C over the next century seems unlikely. The PETM extinction involved a rise of just 5-8C over 200,000 years (Bowen et al, 2015).

We're being careless, which is a really dumb thing to do when you look at the geological history of our planet.
Click to expand...

1, If you think that you can predict human industry will be using for energy in 2 centuries you are very clever.

2, That +2c does not show any signs of happening. At least not over the last couple of decadeds. Do you think it might be wise to not panic yet and see if any of this actually happens? Give it 30 years or so?
 
Tim the plumber said:

1, If you think that you can predict human industry will be using for energy in 2 centuries you are very clever.

2, That +2c does not show any signs of happening. At least not over the last couple of decadeds. Do you think it might be wise to not panic yet and see if any of this actually happens? Give it 30 years or so?
Click to expand...

1) The CO2 isn't magically going to stop warming once we stop putting it in the atmosphere, rather it will take about 1000 years just for 2/3 of the amount we've already put into the atmosphere to be absorbed (Stager, 2012). Why do you think it will magically stop at 2C if we are increasing emissions globally?

And I don't find the magical "Hey, the future will save us" line of thinking terribly convincing.

2) I'm not panicking. The effects of AGW on me personally will be negligible in my lifetime. But carelessness bolstered by the willful ignorance of AGW-deniers I find both amusing and annoying.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
1) The CO2 isn't magically going to stop warming once we stop putting it in the atmosphere, rather it will take about 1000 years just for 2/3 of the amount we've already put into the atmosphere to be absorbed (Stager, 2012). Why do you think it will magically stop at 2C if we are increasing emissions globally?

And I don't find the magical "Hey, the future will save us" line of thinking terribly convincing.

2) I'm not panicking. The effects of AGW on me personally will be negligible in my lifetime. But carelessness bolstered by the willful ignorance of AGW-deniers I find both amusing and annoying.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of the equilibrium temperature that a doubling of CO2 will cause?

Once that is reached for whatever amount of CO2 is added the warming stops.

The values for this are in the order of +2.5c per doubling or less, generally a lot less. That is at 400ppm now to 800ppm +2.5c (expect that in around 200 years at present rates of increase). 800ppm to 1600ppm +5c over now. But that will never happen.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Do you understand the concept of the equilibrium temperature that a doubling of CO2 will cause?

Once that is reached for whatever amount of CO2 is added the warming stops.

The values for this are in the order of +2.5c per doubling or less, generally a lot less. That is at 400ppm now to 800ppm +2.5c (expect that in around 200 years at present rates of increase). 800ppm to 1600ppm +5c over now. But that will never happen.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that I could look at?

And as I said,my concern is not for the next few decades.My concern is centuries to millenia down the road.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
Do you have a source for that I could look at?

And as I said,my concern is not for the next few decades.My concern is centuries to millenia down the road.
Click to expand...

To be honest LoP or some of te others are better at that sort of thing. There are lots of posts about it. Try Longview.

I stick to looking at what would actually happen if the warming as predicted actually happens. So far the worst is that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.
 
Tim the plumber said:

1, If you think that you can predict human industry will be using for energy in 2 centuries you are very clever.

2, That +2c does not show any signs of happening. At least not over the last couple of decadeds. Do you think it might be wise to not panic yet and see if any of this actually happens? Give it 30 years or so?
Click to expand...

No signs of happening? The ultimate DENIAL!!!

GlobalTemperatures.JPG
 
Tim the plumber said:
It should be an ideal set up for you to present your case.

You should be taking the opportunity to floor the other side with the clear picture of what the trouble is.

Each time I get half a chance to talk about how many millions are dying due to the use of food as fuel I do so. That you run away from this says it all.
Click to expand...

See table in post #465...
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

1, If you think that you can predict human industry will be using for energy in 2 centuries you are very clever.

2, That +2c does not show any signs of happening. At least not over the last couple of decadeds. Do you think it might be wise to not panic yet and see if any of this actually happens? Give it 30 years or so?
Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:
No signs of happening? The ultimate DENIAL!!!

View attachment 67244575
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that the temperature has risen over that period? That would be the last 20 years? If so by how much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom