• 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!

Climate Science is in the crapper for warmists .

Threegoofs said:
Read
Your talking point about flatlining is tired. .
Click to expand...

Get in the game.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0
The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

So much for 'settled science' , huh?
 
Threegoofs said:
Really? You think for climate its easier to forecast short term than long term?

That's why you seem to be so confused about the alleged 'lack of warming' over the last (begin: cherry picked reference point) 17 (end: cherry picked reference point) years.
Click to expand...



I'm not confused about anything except those who accept the word of others over the evidence of what they are looking at. I'm looking at the real world and the real world science and making a judgment based on what is there to be seen.

What is it that makes you so concerned? it is only if you cherry pick data that you find a reason for concern in the very mild and gradual change in the climate.

0.7 degrees of temperature rise in 2000 years is hardly reason for panic and yet you seem to want to do just that.
 
Last edited:
Kanstantine said:
The Earth is clearly getting warmer.

But the apocalyptic predictions of 6 foot sea rises and 5 degrees Fahrenheit increases by the end of the century are just silly.

I predict that by 2020 climatologists will again be scratching their heads as to why their dire predictions aren't coming true.
Click to expand...


If the cycle that has beeen cycling since the beginning of the instrumental period continues as it has been, it will be about 2040 before we cycle up again.
 
Kanstantine said:
Does it make sense to you that a 25% increase in the gas that makes up only 15% of our greenhouse gas effect would cause armaggedon?
Click to expand...



Actually, CO2 comprised 3 to 4% of the Greenhouse gases. Water vapor comprises about 95%.
 
Threegoofs said:
Armageddon is an odd word full of religious connotations, so no.

And I don't know where you get your numbers.

But the best minds on the planet studying this tell us that CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere will increase global temps by a few degrees, which is quite possibly amazingly destructive to our way of life.

You seem to think otherwise, but for little reason than 'your gut tells you'.

When virtually all scientific organizations agree there is a serious problem, it seems like we should listen.
Click to expand...



When they can prove that they are working in the real world and not just in the model world, then we can give them some attention.

They cherry pick the data, the time span, the possible outcomes and the possible causes.

They have a whole bunch of cherries and no accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Facts like the percentage increase in CO2 is what I was talking about.

And when you know the physical properties of that substance, have accurately modeled the effects in the climate for decades, extrapolation in the future isn't unreasonable, especially when you put in standard deviations and confidence intervals in your prediction.

And it seems the guys collecting, interpreting and modeling this data think its got some merit. You seem to think it doesn't because...what? Because you don't understand it?
Click to expand...



When I asked you for the accurate models you didn't produce any. if you can't find any, why do you think they exist.

Here's what the models actually look like from the real scientists that just can' seem to shoot straight.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d42dfdbb4970c-pi
 
Last edited:
Kanstantine said:
The Earth is clearly getting warmer.

But the apocalyptic predictions of 6 foot sea rises and 5 degrees Fahrenheit increases by the end of the century are just silly.

I predict that by 2020 climatologists will again be scratching their heads as to why their dire predictions aren't coming true.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Even though there have been numerous solar scientists saying we were starting a cycle of low solar activity, and could start a cooling trend. The alarmists are the deniers of real science.

Alarmists have blinders on as to the influence if the sun.
 
Threegoofs said:
Real scientists publish in journals. Not Internet charts.

But thanks for playing. I'm sure the more deluded members of the board appreciated it.
Click to expand...

Real scientists can't get legitimate work past these agenda driven publications.

Don't bother telling me I'm wrong. I know that is the consensus. I will let the future's history judge me.

--- add ---

Got a message for this being my 1,000th post!
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Real scientists can't get legitimate work past these agenda driven publications.

Don't bother telling me I'm wrong. I know that is the consensus. I will let the future's history judge me.

--- add ---

Got a message for this being my 1,000th post!
Click to expand...

Well, your thousandth post is wrong.

And it points to the heart of the matter - for this whole crusade about CAGW being not real, you have to rely on a far fetched conspiracy story at its base.
 
Threegoofs said:
Real scientists publish in journals. Not Internet charts.

But thanks for playing. I'm sure the more deluded members of the board appreciated it.
Click to expand...
Nice deflection. Are you saying that internet chart is wrong? Those models don't really exist? He falsified the data? Or maybe he cherrypicked all the bad ones and left the accurate ones out?
Well, us anti science folk don't have access to journals. So maybe you can show us all the climate models that have accurately predicted the +10 year flat line?

Your last attempt was kind of embarrasing.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, your thousandth post is wrong.

And it points to the heart of the matter - for this whole crusade about CAGW being not real, you have to rely on a far fetched conspiracy story at its base.
Click to expand...



Or the data. Still waiting for that model you promised.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Nice article.

Thanx.
Click to expand...



The more and more I google this stuff, the less and less likely it appears that one single cause is significant.

Believing that CO2 is driving our climate makes as much sense as believing the volcano god will be calmed if we refrain from offending him.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, your thousandth post is wrong.

And it points to the heart of the matter - for this whole crusade about CAGW being not real, you have to rely on a far fetched conspiracy story at its base.
Click to expand...
LOL...

Failure to follow instructions...

Don't bother telling me I'm wrong. I know that is the consensus. I will let the future's history judge me.
Click to expand...
 
code1211 said:
The more and more I google this stuff, the less and less likely it appears that one single cause is significant.

Believing that CO2 is driving our climate makes as much sense as believing the volcano god will be calmed if we refrain from offending him.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Have you looked at the studies about soot on ice yet?

This is a relatively new study set. After the IPCC released the AR4, advanced in that study have shown a high degree of warming cause by soot. More than ever though before. The simple way to look at it is where the black carbon from coal burning in Asia is going. It gets caught up in the polar winds, and deposited on the northern ice cap. The cap isn't melting because of CO2, but because a slightest amount of soot on ice captures more solar energy and melts it, rather than reflect the energy. Then as more ocean than before is uncovered, water absorbs more than 90% of the solar energy whereas clean ice reflects more than 90%.

Huge difference!

If we had such a huge industrialization near the southern pole, we would see it there too. The southern pole has no significant change from anything.
 
The thing about the soot is one of prima facia evident thingy's.

The fact that the South Pole does not warm as quickly as the North Pole is one of those undeniables that begs the question, "If CO2 is the cause of the warming and the CO2 is well homogenized in the atmosphere, then why is the South Pole not warming as fast as the North Pole?"

It can't be both ways. Either the CO2 is doing the warming or the cause is not known. Clinging bitterly to a cause that has no foundation and no proof is not at all logical.
 
code1211 said:
The thing about the soot is one of prima facia evident thingy's.

The fact that the South Pole does not warm as quickly as the North Pole is one of those undeniables that begs the question, "If CO2 is the cause of the warming and the CO2 is well homogenized in the atmosphere, then why is the South Pole not warming as fast as the North Pole?"

It can't be both ways. Either the CO2 is doing the warming or the cause is not known. Clinging bitterly to a cause that has no foundation and no proof is not at all logical.
Click to expand...
Well, the warmers come up with different excuses, and the fact one is on water and the other is on land has some bearing. Just not enough to explain the difference.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the warmers come up with different excuses, and the fact one is on water and the other is on land has some bearing. Just not enough to explain the difference.
Click to expand...



There are many things going on at the North Pole that don't go on at the South Pole.

The Warmists want any other cause to be discounted or ignored and crow loudly that the receding ice of the Arctic is proof of their dogma.

It is this ongoing disingenuous presentation of partial pictures to support an empty assertion that I find to be annoying.

Whenever I am buying something, if the sales guy's presentation seems to be confusing and/or deceptive, the likelihood that I will buy evaporates. The only way that AGW Science makes any sense is to ignore the whole picture and look at only what the presenter is presenting.

When science relies on ignorance for proof, there is something seriously wrong with the science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom