• 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!

AN ANTI-SCIENCE MANIA TAKES OVER GOP

Basically you are just going to ignore anything that is provided in response to your requests? Everything in science is wrong except your interpretation?

I like how you take large-scale changes like glacial/interglacial stuff and ignore the shorter term stuff going on since 1850. It's like thinking that a volcanic precursor expansion is meaningless since the earth itself isn't expanded as much as during the initial accretion stage. (Also sea level rise may have been increased after glaciation as LAND-BASED continental glaciation melts and raises sea water as well)

The glacial-interglacial stuff is interesting because we SHOULD BE GOING INTO A COOLING phase given what we know about Milankovich Cycles, yet we aren't. But I guess we just ignore that because it is incovenient?
We have been over the "supposed to be cooling" stuff already, there is no real predicted timing for the beginning of the next ice age,
beyond sometime in the next 1500 years.
By the way that nice sea level rise curve, shows that while we may not have much potential for amplified warming,
we have a very large potential for high attenuation cooling!
 
We have been over the "supposed to be cooling" stuff already, there is no real predicted timing for the beginning of the next ice age,

Regardless of your insistence otherwise we do have a reasonable idea on the length of Milankovich Cycles and we have MANY glacial-interglacial cycles in the Cenozoic to establish a trend.

Besides, it's not like in 1500 years the temp is going to suddenly plummet!

These are related to orbital changes of the earth which take place over long periods of time.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of your insistence otherwise we do have a reasonable idea on the length of Milankovich Cycles and we have MANY glacial-interglacial cycles in the Cenozoic to establish a trend.

Besides, it's not like in 1500 years the temp is going to suddenly plummet!

These are related to orbital changes of the earth which take place over long periods of time.
The 1500 years is the uncertainty of when the next cooling cycle could begin, you are implying
that you know it already should have begun.
As for the speed, have you read the report from the little ice age, where the glacier was creeping
down the valley at the range of a musket shot per day, even in the summer!
Feedbacks work both ways!
 
As for the speed, have you read the report from the little ice age, where the glacier was creeping

The little ice age has nothing to do with the Cenozoic ice ages we are talking about.
 
Is this the James Hansen whose graphs and data you keep showing:

“Thirty years after a former Nasa scientist sounded the alarm for the general public about climate change and human activity, the expert issued a fresh warning that the world is failing “miserably” to deal with the worsening dangers.”

 
The 1500 years is the uncertainty of when the next cooling cycle could begin, you are implying
that you know it already should have begun.
As for the speed, have you read the report from the little ice age, where the glacier was creeping
down the valley at the range of a musket shot per day, even in the summer!
Feedbacks work both ways!

You keep claiming that human-caused CO2 should not be considered as the primary cause for global warming, but that other factors should be considered more greatly. Can you cite an actual climate scientist or scientists who agree with you? I'm not asking for more of your data and charts. I'm asking for you to cite some scientists who agree with your conclusions. Can you do that?
 
The little ice age has nothing to do with the Cenozoic ice ages we are talking about.
I am not saying it did, but simply pointing out that cooling and the changes that follow it can happen quickly.
 
Is this the James Hansen whose graphs and data you keep showing:

“Thirty years after a former Nasa scientist sounded the alarm for the general public about climate change and human activity, the expert issued a fresh warning that the world is failing “miserably” to deal with the worsening dangers.”

I am familiar with James Hansen's activist role.
 
I am not saying it did, but simply pointing out that cooling and the changes that follow it can happen quickly.

But it is highly unlikely that a real ice age like the last several in the Cenozoic will happen in the space of a year or so. Again, we SHOULD be heading into more cooling but we aren't.
 
I am familiar with James Hansen's activist role.

That didn’t answer my question. He has long been a proponent that CO2 as produced by man’s efforts is far and away the most vital component of global warming, which would indicate that you are taking his data out of context and having it say exactly the opposite of his intent, which would further mean that we simply cannot trust any of your inputs that contain his data, or any others that contain data, for that matter.
 
You keep claiming that human-caused CO2 should not be considered as the primary cause for global warming, but that other factors should be considered more greatly. Can you cite an actual climate scientist or scientists who agree with you? I'm not asking for more of your data and charts. I'm asking for you to cite some scientists who agree with your conclusions. Can you do that?
What post did I say the CO2 should not be considered the Primary cause of global warming?
I said that the warming from increased CO2 is not of much concern.
I think Richard Lindzen comes fairly close.
Lindzen Choi 2011
"In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally
exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. "
 
What post did I say the CO2 should not be considered the Primary cause of global warming?
I said that the warming from increased CO2 is not of much concern.
I think Richard Lindzen comes fairly close.
Lindzen Choi 2011
"In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally
exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. "

I am not certain what you mean by “of not much concern”. The environmental problems caused by global warming are already being felt around the world, and I doubt that there is anyone out there who says that they will not steadily get worse. Why should that not be of concern?
 
That didn’t answer my question. He has long been a proponent that CO2 as produced by man’s efforts is far and away the most vital component of global warming, which would indicate that you are taking his data out of context and having it say exactly the opposite of his intent, which would further mean that we simply cannot trust any of your inputs that contain his data, or any others that contain data, for that matter.
If you had bothered to look, I used Hansen's predictions as a comparison to show the the predictions were not holding up.
He may be an activist, but when he was doing actual science, his work was sound up to the point where he input his assumptions.
Read about the Wonderland model and ghost forcing.
 
That didn’t answer my question. He has long been a proponent that CO2 as produced by man’s efforts is far and away the most vital component of global warming,

Most experts in the field that CO2 is a strong forcing among the many in play.

which would indicate that you are taking his data out of context

The world is wrong but you are right. Got it.

and having it say exactly the opposite of his intent, which would further mean that we simply cannot trust any of your inputs that contain his data, or any others that contain data, for that matter.

And another expert falls and fails to meet your high standards. I hope you are in contact with him to help him see the error of his ways. But it's a lot of people you have to contact since the majority of the earth's climate experts over the last 50 years are all equally confused and mistaken.
 
I am not certain what you mean by “of not much concern”. The environmental problems caused by global warming are already being felt around the world, and I doubt that there is anyone out there who says that they will not steadily get worse. Why should that not be of concern?
People can point to any natural weather event and say, "There, this is evidence of global warming!!!"
just saying the words, does not make it so.
 
If you had bothered to look, I used Hansen's predictions as a comparison to show the the predictions were not holding up.
He may be an activist, but when he was doing actual science, his work was sound up to the point where he input his assumptions.
Read about the Wonderland model and ghost forcing.

It depends on what you mean by “not holding up”. When were the predictions made? Yes, predictions are models and are not mean to be exact, but there are also predictions whereby the actual conditions are WORSE, such as the melting of one in the Arctic. Overall, the arc of the various models are holding up in their basic formulation of increased CO2 and feedback, and again, it is WORSE than many predictions.
 
People can point to any natural weather event and say, "There, this is evidence of global warming!!!"
just saying the words, does not make it so.

Again, you did not answer the question. Why should we not be concerned about the potential for an increase in very devastating environmental effects? Of we caused the problem, should we not take on the responsibility to fix it? Why not?
 
It depends on what you mean by “not holding up”. When were the predictions made? Yes, predictions are models and are not mean to be exact, but there are also predictions whereby the actual conditions are WORSE, such as the melting of one in the Arctic. Overall, the arc of the various models are holding up in their basic formulation of increased CO2 and feedback, and again, it is WORSE than many predictions.
Here is one of the examples I already cited.
Hansen 1997 had a reference of how much warming he expected by latitude, vs the observed warming by latitude from
The GISS, the data set Hansen set up.
Do you see any difference between the predicted and observed curves?
Hansen97VsGISS_zone.png
 
People can point to any natural weather event and say, "There, this is evidence of global warming!!!"
just saying the words, does not make it so.

The ONLY people who point to a weather event and say "that's evidence of global warming" are NOT doing it from a position of science.

Scientists know that single events are useless in a statistical sense. This is called "anecdotal data".
 
What post did I say the CO2 should not be considered the Primary cause of global warming?
I said that the warming from increased CO2 is not of much concern.
I think Richard Lindzen comes fairly close.
Lindzen Choi 2011
"In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally
exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. "

Worse than predicted:
“ Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.”


 
Again, you did not answer the question. Why should we not be concerned about the potential for an increase in very devastating environmental effects? Of we caused the problem, should we not take on the responsibility to fix it? Why not?
First off there is almost no weather related event, that someone can point to and say with any certainty,
that the event would not have happened if CO2 levels had not increased.
Global greening is about the only thing that is beyond question from higher CO2 levels.
We have a responsibility to address the actual problems facing humanity, not the imagined ones!
We must quickly solve our energy problem, that is the long pole in the tent!
 
Here is one of the examples I already cited.
Hansen 1997 had a reference of how much warming he expected by latitude, vs the observed warming by latitude from
The GISS, the data set Hansen set up.
Do you see any difference between the predicted and observed curves?
View attachment 67313483

You’re going to need to expand. Exactly what is it that you want me to see?
 
First off there is almost no weather related event, that someone can point to and say with any certainty,
that the event would not have happened if CO2 levels had not increased.
Global greening is about the only thing that is beyond question from higher CO2 levels.
We have a responsibility to address the actual problems facing humanity, not the imagined ones!
We must quickly solve our energy problem, that is the long pole in the tent!

Melting ice in the Arctic? More frequent flooding in South Pacific atolls? Permafrost turning to mush in Eskimo villages? Not signs of global warming? Really? In actuality, these are canary in the cage events foretelling a gloomy environmental future as such items become more widespread, aren’t they?
 
Worse than predicted:
“ Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.”


As I have said, since CO2 is the same in both Hemispheres, as is the surface 15 um emissions, then something other than CO2
is related to Northern Hemisphere warming.
The question is actually irrelevant, as Earth's energy imbalance has been declining for almost 20 years,
and the climate must follow.
 
You’re going to need to expand. Exactly what is it that you want me to see?
What, You cannot see that Hansen predicted peak warming at both poles, but the observed
warming is almost the opposite of that, with only minor warming in the South, and large warming in the North.
All this while CO2 saw the same increase everywhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom