• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Are we really addicted to fossil fuels ?

Lord of Planar said:
We have no annual data that far back to compare with. It is an invalid point.
Click to expand...

Yes, we don't have yearly resolution but scientists know average temperatures over a century in the past (as you also correctly pointed out), and compared to those we are setting 120,000-year-records.

"Global surface temperature has increased by 0.99 [0.84 to 1.10] °C from 1850–1900 to the first two decades of the 21st century (2001–2020) and by 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C from 1850–1900 to 2011–2020. Temperatures as high as during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed the warmest centennial-scale range reconstructed for the present interglacial, around 6500 years ago [0.2°C to 1°C] (medium confidence). The next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago during the last interglacial when the multi-centennial temperature range [0.5°C to 1.5°C] encompasses the 2011–2020 values (medium confidence). The likely range of human-induced change in global surface
temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a central estimate of 1.07°C, encompassing the best estimate of observed warming for that period, which is 1.06°C with a very likely range of [0.88°C to 1.21°C], while the likely range of the change attributable to natural forcing is only –0.1°C to +0.1°C." source

Note this was for average temp LAST decade. 2023 is ABOVE those temperatures, which is why we beat the 6500-year-ago maximum and the next one was ~125,000 year ago.
 
longview said:
Not really you quote just means the El Niño spike is superimposed on top of the warming trend, not that it changed the size of the El Niño spike itself.
Click to expand...

The 2 studies I gave you specifically indicate AWG increases frequency and strength of El Nino.
 
Slavister said:
The 2 studies I gave you specifically indicate AWG increases frequency and strength of El Nino.
Click to expand...
By what mechanisms? The reason I ask is because we do not know what really causes El Niño events!
 
longview said:
By what mechanisms? The reason I ask is because we do not know what really causes El Niño events!
Click to expand...

Ask the scientists. Even if we don't know mechanisms, it does not mean it's not true.
 
Slavister said:
Ask the scientists. Even if we don't know mechanisms, it does not mean it's not true.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the opening of the abstract you cited?
Anthropogenic impacts on twentieth-century ENSO variability changes
The claim is that computer simulations suggest that there could be an effect, but the models are all over the place and the assumptions of sensitivity are largely in error.
 

Ahh... selective reading I see...

You forgot the next sentence "In this Perspective, we consider anthropogenic impacts on ENSO variability in several commonly used modelling designs, which collectively suggest a greenhouse warming-related effect on post-1960 ENSO SST variability."

In case you don't know what this means, the lead author published a more layman article here, which starts off by saying "Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions mean strong El Niño and La Niña events are occurring more often, according to our new research, which provides important new evidence of the human fingerprint on Earth’s climate."... referring to the very article I sent you.
 
I know they are making assumptions of how much greenhouse gas warming to superimpose on top of the assumed El Niño levels.
Considering that we have no idea how large a given El Niño spike will be, or an accurate number for the climate’s sensitivity to added greenhouse gases, any results, are pure speculation!
 

Pretending scientists are in the business of doing nothing but wild ass guesses and speculation is why you wasting time here on anonymous board, where noone takes you seriously, and they are there, doing actual science.
 
Slavister said:
Pretending scientists are in the business of doing nothing but wild ass guesses and speculation is why you wasting time here on anonymous board, where noone takes you seriously, and they are there, doing actual science.
Click to expand...
No pretending here!
Look at the range of 2XCO2 climate sensitivity just in the peer reviewed published literature?
Estimates range from about 0.6C to over 6C!
Add on top of that, the lack of predictability of both the timing and size of El Niño event, and we have all the ingredients for pure speculation!
Is whatever an El Niño peak superimposed on top of the general warming? Sure, but assigning a value to one piece or the other of that combination, is a wild ass guess at this point.
 
longview said:
No pretending here!
Look at the range of 2XCO2 climate sensitivity just in the peer reviewed published literature?
Estimates range from about 0.6C to over 6C!
Click to expand...

You misrepresent.

Again.

1990: "The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 lay between 1.5 and 4.5 °C"

Later: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C.[33] (source)

More data is coming in. Models get refined. Estimates get closer to the real values. This will get further refined again... thanks to science and not thanks to wild ass guesses as you will undoubtly claim. Again.


Scientists have their models which predict X. You can dismiss them as reading tea leaves but I am pretty sure they are MORE than an educated guess.

"... a comparison of simulated ENSO SST variability between 1901–1960 and 1961–2020 indicates that more than three quarters of climate models produce an amplitude increase in post-1960 ENSO SST variability, translating into more frequent strong El Niño and La Niña events. Multiple large ensemble experiments further confirm that the simulated post-1960 ENSO amplitude increase (approximately 10%) is not solely due to internal variability..."

Then they find that X actually is happening. This is a strong indication that X is correct AND the models are decent.

"We find that ENSO variability over the last five decades is ~25% stronger than during the preindustrial. Our results provide empirical support for recent climate model projections showing an intensification of ENSO extremes under greenhouse forcing."
 
No misrepresentation here, read the actual peer reviewed literature!
 
longview said:
No misrepresentation here, read the actual peer reviewed literature!
Click to expand...

Funny... coming from the guy who in this very exchange is literally dismissing the peer reviewed literature on the basis of it being just useless speculation anyway.

In case you did not know my quotes to which you just replied COME FROM the very same peer reviewed literature.
 
Ug make hammer said:
Fossil fuels are marginally cheaper, but that could easily change. You don't want change, so you fearmonger about it.
Click to expand...

Your entire life from birth to death revolves around fossil fuels.

You eat fossil fuels, You drink fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are in your meds. You wear fossil fuels. You walk on fossil fuels. You sit on fossil fuels. You smear fossil fuels all over your cute little bodies. 95% of the things you touch are fossil fuels.

Whether all your vehicles are ICE or EV makes ZERO difference. Fossil fuels rule your life.

You will be drilling for fossil fuels up to the day you figure out how to manipulate E = mc^2 so's you can take Moon rocks or asteroids and turn them into the things you get from fossil fuels.
 
That study was, and many are paper tigers, but peer reviewed literature is the standard used.
Notice some of the low finds are below 1C?
 
longview said:
That study was, and many are paper tigers, but peer reviewed literature is the standard used.
Notice some of the low finds are below 1C?
View attachment 67466223
Click to expand...

Cato Institute? Really? Let me know when you find something outside of political think tank. Don't forget the link when you present it.

Your Cato Institute nonsense is just spinning the true science. It's sad that you either are unaware or oblivious.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Cato Institute? Really? Let me know when you find something outside of political think tank. Don't forget the link when you present it
Click to expand...
The peer reviewed studies are listed, you can look them up. Why would they present something that was false and could be proven false?
 
longview said:
The peer reviewed studies are listed, you can look them up. Why would they present something that was false and could be proven false?
Click to expand...

Really? You are asking this about Cato Institute? It's like asking the same question of AON or gatewaypundit.

They cherry pick AND then misrepresent results. To server their own agenda.

Looking at Lewis 2013 and Aldrin 2012 for example, both are effectively covered here:

"One significant issue in Lewis' paper (in his abstract, in fact) is that in trying to show that his result is not an outlier, he claims that Aldrin et al. (2012) arrived at the same most likely climate sensitivity estimate of 1.6°C, calling his result "identical to those from Aldrin et al. (2012)." However, this is not an accurate representation of their results.


The authors of Aldrin et al. report a mean climate sensitivity value of 2.0°C under certain assumptions that they caution are not directly comparable to climate model-based estimates. When Aldrin et al. include a term for the influences of indirect aerosols and clouds, which they consider to be a more appropriate comparison to estimates such as the IPCC's model-based estimate of ~3°C, they report a sensitivity that increases up to 3.3°C. Their reported value is thus in good agreement with the full body of evidence as detailed in the IPCC report.


Lewis's claimed value of 1.6°C appears nowhere in the paper itself. Rather, Lewis apparently ignored the authors' reported findings in favor of the mode he estimated from graphs in the paper. This misrepresentation both gives a false sense of agreements between the reported senstivity estimates as well as hides the mainstream values reported by the authors of Aldrin et al. These issues are discussed in detail at The Way Things Break along with the relevant figures from the paper."

source

And you can claim my source is biased of course. Sure, but the point is yours IS FOR SURE biased.
 
Just because the priests of AGW tell you they are to be denied a place in the field, and you believe them, shows you are in that cult.
 
Slavister said:
Really? You are asking this about Cato Institute? It's like asking the same question of AON or gatewaypundit.
Click to expand...
Really now.

How many other logical fallacies do you have?
Yes, you believe a blog over a paper.

Typical indoctrinated follower of the religion.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really now.

How many other logical fallacies do you have?

Yes, you believe a blog over a paper.

Typical indoctrinated follower of the religion.
Click to expand...

I believe a blog over another blog which misrepresented the paper. CATO page made the same apple-to-oranges comparison as described on the blog.

And YOU of course are the one who poo-poos the papers you don't like left and right as we recently established.
 
Why are you waiting to claim fame and fortune by proving that the Cato Institute published something that you can prove is false?
 
Your faith is strong...
 
fossil fuels alone has not provided many of those advances. Its pretty ****ing obvious burning those fuels is going to recreate the environment in which those fuels came from which is not good for us.

Most of the idiot warning about electric vehicles are incredibly overblown.
 
sorry i cant take this seriously. I mean y’all can kvetch all you like but its either we get off fossil fuels or were going to have an incredibly hard time living on this planet.
 
Oil companies have been trying their damnest to hide what they already knew. The climate scientists are correct, oil companies just spent millions trying to cover it up by pouring millions into think tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…