• 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!

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

Visbek said:
Spare us your usual semantic antics. You're fooling no one.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy.
Visbek said:
Bull****. The organizations publish those statements specifically because it reflects the views of their members.
Click to expand...
Bigotry.
Visbek said:
This is the last 10,000 years. It should be quite obvious that the past ~125 years are not part of any natural process.
Click to expand...
No one was measuring temperature 10,000 years ago. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth today.
 
Visbek said:
Most of this post is just repetition of your mistakes, errors and/or lies, and does not require further response. Anyway...

Again, the purpose of the land stations is not to produce one single average temperature of the entire planet. The purpose is to determine how much temperatures have changed relative to earlier time periods. We make adjustments because we don't want those results to be biased by, for example, an urban heat island that is biasing the measurements; or a change in the measurement protocol.

Ironically, many of the adjustments reduce the official recorded temperatures. Go figure.

By the way, all of the raw data is publicly available, as are the algorithms and computer programs used to make the adjustments. Wow. Those sneaky bastards, being all transparent! Oh, wait...



I don't need to know the temperature of every square centimeter of my body to know whether I have a fever. All I need is to measure a consistent location, in a reasonably consistent manner. And yes, this is sufficiently precise to provide critical medical information to whomever requires it.

Along the same lines, we don't need an average of the temperature of every square inch of the planet. We are using consistent locations, using as consistent a method as possible. We are also using large numbers of sites to corroborate the data. This gives us a good picture of differences in temperatures in various periods, which is typically what we need to know.



Uh, hello? I wasn't saying those were the only options. The data is available so that researchers can use whatever baseline is relevant to their specific needs. One project may want to compare the present to the 20th century average; another may want to focus on the most recent 30 years; a third may look for decadal patterns.



I hate to break this to you, but... there really isn't a problem saying that "Saratoga is 73ºF." We do it every single day, and it's quite useful. Even though it does not tell us the precise temperature of every cubic centimeter of the town, it is more than sufficient to know whether or not you need a jacket. Thanks for demonstrating the absurdity of your position.



Thanks again for helping me prove my point.

Most people only use one thermometer. And it works quite well.

My goal is to live in my house, and to keep it at a reasonable temperature. If I only use the attic for storage, then incorporating the attic temperature into the HVAC system will actually be detrimental, as it will bias the system in unproductive ways. If I only use the garage to store a car, the temperature of the garage is irrelevant. The thermostat does not need to construct an average of every cubic millimeter of the house in order to do its job. One site of measurement is usually sufficient.

Measuring global temperatures for the purposes of determining temperature anomalies requires a bit more precision and calibration than your home's thermostat. That's why we use thousands of stations and precise protocols. In fact, the measurement systems are sensitive enough to be affected by the time of day when the 24-hour measurements are collected and averaged.

All you're doing is demanding superfluous and unnecessary amounts of data. Pass.
Click to expand...

The weather forecast for my area this afternoon is a pleasant 25 C. However, they cannot possibly know this since they don't have 10,000 thermometers per square metre. I shall therefore ignore the forecast completely and wear my thermal underwear and overcoat when I leave the house. :roll:
 
late said:
Like that's going to happen.

Old news, if you want it, go for it.
Click to expand...

You are the one claiming such surveys exist, produce one or retract the statement.
 
Visbek said:
Spare us your usual semantic antics. You're fooling no one.



Bull****. The organizations publish those statements specifically because it reflects the views of their members.



Actually, it sounds like bull****.

This is the last 10,000 years. It should be quite obvious that the past ~125 years are not part of any natural process.

11000-years-temp.gif
Click to expand...

So do you know what the temporal resolution of Marcott et al. 2013 is? oh wait it is 120 years.
Can you see any issue with combining a record with monthly resolution with one with a 120 year resolution?
Also where in Marcott do you see evidence of the massive positive amplified feedbacks necessary to increase an input of 1.1 C to 3 C?
If the claimed feedbacks existed at that level, the .4 C from -8000 years ago, would be a part of that amplified feedback loop.
The .4 C would become 1C (2.7 factor), and so on, according the the concept of AGW nothing in nature should be able to reverse the process.
 
longview said:
So do you know what the temporal resolution of Marcott et al. 2013 is? oh wait it is 120 years.
Can you see any issue with combining a record with monthly resolution with one with a 120 year resolution?
Click to expand...
Nope.


Also where in Marcott do you see evidence of the massive positive amplified feedbacks necessary to increase an input of 1.1 C to 3 C?
Click to expand...
What I see in Marcott is the absence of 0.8C spikes. Since humans only started emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases in the past ~150 years, it is reasonable to conclude that the current spike is due to human activity.

So you can cut the bull**** about trying to deny or skirt around feedbacks, and accept that what we are seeing now is not a result of natural variations.
 
longview said:
But what the scientist agree on is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the likely warming will fall somewhere within the enormous range.
They do not agree on much more than that.
I am not denying any of this, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the likely ECS will be in the IPCC range.
Where faith is involved is that people steadfastly read between the lines, and assume the ECS will fall in the middle
of the range when there is not much data to support that.
The observed data supports the low end of the range.
Click to expand...

I will contend that the ECS is lower than the bottom of the IPCCC range,
 
Surface Detail said:
You can contend all you like. Without any supporting evidence your contention is nothing more than background noise.
Click to expand...

Supporting evidence would take a long time. I would first have to educate you to a high enough level to comprehend. Not worth my time.
 
Visbek said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
You saying something does not make it true!
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott et al., 2013, Science.pdf
The 73 globally distributed temperature re-
cords used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling
resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a
median resolution of 120 years (5).
Click to expand...


What I see in Marcott is the absence of 0.8C spikes. Since humans only started emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases in the past ~150 years, it is reasonable to conclude that the current spike is due to human activity.

So you can cut the bull**** about trying to deny or skirt around feedbacks, and accept that what we are seeing now is not a result of natural variations.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
The recent increase in temperatures, the portion attributed to Human activity is really from 1978 onward,
so a period of about 40 years, is likely insufficient to show a change in the reconstruction.
Here is what Marcott said on the subject.
The results suggest that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with
essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years,
~50% preserved at 1000-year periods, and nearly all of the variability
preserved for periods longer than 2000 years
Click to expand...

Let's get back to the facts,
Human CO2 emissions can cause warming by forcing the surface troposphere system to warm in response to an energy imbalance.
How the climate responds to that warming is highly subjective, since the reconstructions show warming,
without the subsequent feedback warming necessary for the high feedback factor to exists.
We are asked to believe these feedbacks exists at the higher levels, not based on the empirical evidence, but
on wishful thinking.
The IPCC itself knows better that to drive a stake in the ground that can be shown to be in error,
and so wisely defines a broad range, with the low end close to the CO2 forcing range.
 
longview said:
You saying something does not make it true!
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott et al., 2013, Science.pdf
Click to expand...
The recent increase in temperatures, the portion attributed to Human activity is really from 1978 onward,
so a period of about 40 years, is likely insufficient to show a change in the reconstruction.
Here is what Marcott said on the subject.


Let's get back to the facts,
Human CO2 emissions can cause warming by forcing the surface troposphere system to warm in response to an energy imbalance.
How the climate responds to that warming is highly subjective, since the reconstructions show warming,
without the subsequent feedback warming necessary for the high feedback factor to exists.
We are asked to believe these feedbacks exists at the higher levels, not based on the empirical evidence, but
on wishful thinking.
The IPCC itself knows better that to drive a stake in the ground that can be shown to be in error,
and so wisely defines a broad range, with the low end close to the CO2 forcing range.[/QUOTE]

PAGES 2K shows a trend similar to Marcott with resolutions as frequently as biweekly,

Your denier talking point is dead.
 
Threegoofs said:
The recent increase in temperatures, the portion attributed to Human activity is really from 1978 onward,
so a period of about 40 years, is likely insufficient to show a change in the reconstruction.
Here is what Marcott said on the subject.


Let's get back to the facts,
Human CO2 emissions can cause warming by forcing the surface troposphere system to warm in response to an energy imbalance.
How the climate responds to that warming is highly subjective, since the reconstructions show warming,
without the subsequent feedback warming necessary for the high feedback factor to exists.
We are asked to believe these feedbacks exists at the higher levels, not based on the empirical evidence, but
on wishful thinking.
The IPCC itself knows better that to drive a stake in the ground that can be shown to be in error,
and so wisely defines a broad range, with the low end close to the CO2 forcing range.
Click to expand...

PAGES 2K shows a trend similar to Marcott with resolutions as frequently as biweekly,

Your denier talking point is dead.[/QUOTE]

Goofed again I see! Way to miss the point!
If PAGES 2K shows a trend similar to Marcott with resolutions as frequently as biweekly,
then does it show the necessary feedbacks to earlier warming?
PAGES 2 K shows about .25 C of warming between year 0 and year 600, and then cooling from the 600 to the early 1800's.
Was the climate amplifier broken for 1200 years?
Why wasn't the .25 C before year 600, amplified to be .67 C, which would then be amplified to be even higher.
The core of catastrophic AGW is the the feedbacks would overwhelm the natural processes,
yet that does not appear to be in evidence.
In year 600 the natural processes overwhelmed the feedbacks.
 
longview said:
PAGES 2K shows a trend similar to Marcott with resolutions as frequently as biweekly,

Your denier talking point is dead.
Click to expand...

Goofed again I see! Way to miss the point!
If PAGES 2K shows a trend similar to Marcott with resolutions as frequently as biweekly,
then does it show the necessary feedbacks to earlier warming?
PAGES 2 K shows about .25 C of warming between year 0 and year 600, and then cooling from the 600 to the early 1800's.
Was the climate amplifier broken for 1200 years?
Why wasn't the .25 C before year 600, amplified to be .67 C, which would then be amplified to be even higher.
The core of catastrophic AGW is the the feedbacks would overwhelm the natural processes,
yet that does not appear to be in evidence.
In year 600 the natural processes overwhelmed the feedbacks.[/QUOTE]

The core of AGW is... that it’s anthropogenic.

Your fantasies about 600AD are nonsensical, and that’s being kind.
 
late said:
Both DARPA and Big Oil found it before then.
Click to expand...
That CO2 was a greenhouse gas was known, showing any warming that may have resulted
from added CO2 had to wait until about 1978.
Before 1978, the trend had been cooling for several decades.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Which is why the Government's National Research Council had the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
do a report on understanding climate change in 1975.
https://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt
So what did the report in 1975 find?
The increasing realization that man's activities may be changing the
climate, and mounting evidence that the earth's climates have undergone
a long series of complex natural changes in the past, have brought new
interest and concern to the problem of climatic variation.
Click to expand...
Let's look at the introduction and see what their concerns were.
A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments
on a worldwide scale, because the global patterns of food production
and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate
of the present century. It is not primarily the advance of a major ice
sheet over our farms and cities that we must fear, devastating as this
would be, for such changes take thousands of years to evolve. Rather,
it is persistent changes of the temperature and rainfall in areas com-
mitted to agricultural use, changes in the frost content of Canadian and
Siberian soils, and changes of ocean temperature in areas of high nutri-
ent production, for example, that are of more immediate concern. We
know from experience that the world's food production is highly de-
pendent on the occurrence of favorable weather conditions in the
"breadbasket" areas during the growing seasons. Because world grain
reserves are but a few percent of annual consumption, an unfavorable
crop year, such as occurred in the Ukraine in 1972, has immediate inter-
national consequences.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Goofed again I see! Way to miss the point!
If PAGES 2K shows a trend similar to Marcott with resolutions as frequently as biweekly,
then does it show the necessary feedbacks to earlier warming?
PAGES 2 K shows about .25 C of warming between year 0 and year 600, and then cooling from the 600 to the early 1800's.
Was the climate amplifier broken for 1200 years?
Why wasn't the .25 C before year 600, amplified to be .67 C, which would then be amplified to be even higher.
The core of catastrophic AGW is the the feedbacks would overwhelm the natural processes,
yet that does not appear to be in evidence.
In year 600 the natural processes overwhelmed the feedbacks.
Click to expand...

The core of AGW is... that it’s anthropogenic.

Your fantasies about 600AD are nonsensical, and that’s being kind.[/QUOTE]

Please fix your quotes!
So tell me why the warming between year 0 and year 600 would not have responded to the predicted amplified feedbacks?
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm sure you think you have a very important point here.

God only knows what it is.

PAGES_Composite_Temperature-500x216.png
Click to expand...
the point is that if a climate amplifier with a high gain exists, it has always existed, and would process any warming the same.
The warming from year 0 to year 600, would also be amplified, the output of that amplification cycle would then be amplified again and again.
There could never be the cool down shown in Pages 2K, if the gain were high enough for a 1.1 C input to produce a 3 C output.
 
longview said:
Which is why the Government's National Research Council had the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
do a report on understanding climate change in 1975.
Click to expand...

Both DARPA and the Big Oil research were secret at that time.

Science has been working on AGW for over 4 decades now.

We don't do science here, this is a circus, a clown car where kooks constantly jump out of the clown car and make stupid noises.
 
longview said:
the point is that if a climate amplifier with a high gain exists, it has always existed, and would process any warming the same.
The warming from year 0 to year 600, would also be amplified, the output of that amplification cycle would then be amplified again and again.
There could never be the cool down shown in Pages 2K, if the gain were high enough for a 1.1 C input to produce a 3 C output.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you think the conclusions of whatever imaginary science you are referencing is predicting that anytime temperature changes substantially in one direction, it will continue to move on that direction forever.

That’s more dissociated with reality than usual. You sure you’re ok today? I’m a bit concerned.
 
late said:
Both DARPA and the Big Oil research were secret at that time.

Science has been working on AGW for over 4 decades now.

We don't do science here, this is a circus, a clown car where kooks constantly jump out of the clown car and make stupid noises.
Click to expand...

It must not have been a well kept secret, since everything Big Oil knew had been discussed in the scientific literature for decades.
 
Threegoofs said:
So what you are saying is that you think the conclusions of whatever imaginary science you are referencing is predicting that anytime temperature changes substantially in one direction, it will continue to move on that direction forever.

That’s more dissociated with reality than usual. You sure you’re ok today? I’m a bit concerned.
Click to expand...
It is not me, that is the core of catastrophic AGW, the very heart of the idea of a "tipping point", a point of no return.
What I am saying is that if such a mechanism existed, it would manifest on all earlier warming and cooling as well.
Since the reconstructions do not show these types of feedbacks, why should we believe they will exists in the future?
 
longview said:
It must not have been a well kept secret, since everything Big Oil knew had been discussed in the scientific literature for decades.
Click to expand...

Not in the 70s that I know of.

My understanding is that the secret Big Oil research became public decades later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom