• 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!

Idiotic Environmental Predictions

But every engineering design needs to understand the limits of the black box.
The drawbridge in the background was designed to handle vehicles within specified limits.
Over engineering gets wasteful, without understanding the limits!
Do you build a 100 foot high seawall for an expected 1 to 2 foot rise?

New Cities in more optimal locations could be, intelligently designed from the ground up.
 
The vast amounts of funding for only research supporting man made climate change,
encourages researchers seeking that funding to phrase their findings in a way that supports the concept of AGW.
Here is a good example,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Feldman did find that downwelling longwave radiation increased as CO2 levels increased,
but he had to add that,

The former is less than, but proportional to, the latter owing to tro-pospheric adjustments of sensible and latent heat

to make his paper acceptable to the AGW gatekeepers.
but what he really found was a .22 Wm-2 increase as CO2 increased from 369 ppm to 392 ppm.
This works out to a no feedback forcing for doubling the CO2 level of 3.64 X ln(2)=2.52 Wm-2,
much lower than the 3.71 Wm-2 level predicted at the top of the atmosphere.
The first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it the energy is not outbound, it has to be downwelling.

So... longview has decided to go back to outright lying about this study.

:doh

The full quote from that study:

Surface forcing represents a complementary, underutilized resource with which to quantify the effects of rising CO2 concentrations on downwelling longwave radiation. This quantity is distinct from stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing at the tropopause, but both are fundamental measures of energy imbalance caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases. The former is less than, but proportional to, the latter owing to tropospheric adjustments of sensible and latent heat, and is a useful metric for localized aspects of climate response.

The reason Feldman et al added that line wasn't so that it would be accepted by the peer reviewers. It was so people like long wouldn't try and do exactly what long is doing here now. It is just fundamentally wrong to directly compare surface measurements to calculations of forcing at the tropopause. And the part about sensible and latent heat is about how the atmosphere can store and release heat. So there is no energy being created or destroyed.

And the really screwed up thing is that this has been shown to long several times now. And he is both unable to learn this truth or refute it in any way at all.

If you ask me its longview's politics that prevent him from excepting this truth.
 
This Year’s Dry Europe Summer Nothing New, Happened More Often During Prosperous Medieval Period

By P Gosselin on 12. November 2019
The two recent dry summers seen in Europe have led to alarmists believing that the climate doomsday has arrived. But The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) looks at the past to see if this sort of thing is really unusual.
=======================
German forests growing much faster today than 1000 years ago. Photo: NTZ
=================
Dry summers as a doomsday scenario – are they really something new?

By Axel Robert Göhring
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Drought completely normal during High Medieval Ages.
Researchers from the German Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics at the University of Greifswald have shown that drought in the High Middle Ages was completely normal during the summer. Even if hardly any real scientist dares to say anything against the climate madness, many do their work properly and deliver many small mosaic pieces for dismantling all the fraud.
Last spring, however, one could hear “top physicist” Harald Lesch at the Markus Lanz’s ZDF show claim how climate change would hit quite badly in summer, how the drought of the “record summer” 2019 would have violent effects, especially on the holy German Forest (forest die-off scare came knocking again…).
So what about drought in the holy German Forest 2019? Is it real, or “interpreted”?
Well, it’s probably real. But why not? In summer it is hot and dry even in the temperate climate zone of Europe. Mr. Lesch & Co. showed a heat peak and claimed it is man-made climate change. And when a cold peak appears, then it is only weather – or even proof of climate change. Weather extremes are somehow more frequent today.
Dry summers in Europe not uncommon, new study

Biologist Martin Wilmking and his team from the University of Greifswald in the German state of Vorpommern now have shown that dry summers a thousand years ago were not uncommon in northern Germany. In fact, they were much warmer than today – and this without combustion engines, industry and motor traffic.
Prof. Wilmking and his biologists evaluated so-called proxy data, i.e. verifiable effects of climate in animate or inanimate nature. Specifically, the team worked on annual rings in living beech trees and thousand-year-old archaeological timber: the long established field of expertise is dendroclimatology (Greek: dendron – the tree).
Trees growing faster today
The authors prove once again that our forests are growing much faster today than in the past, because agriculture (also traffic & industry) provides them with a lot of fixed nitrogen (ammonium salts).
The modestly increased CO2 content of today’s air also allows the trees to open the stomata of the leaves for a shorter period of time, thus limiting water losses. In other words, our industrial civilization is considerably HELPING the forest by supplying it with building materials and even water indirectly. This is nothing new for avid EIKE readers, as we have pointed out more than once that the planet has become much greener in recent decades.
Often dry in the prosperous High Middle Ages
If one includes the faster growth of today’s trees, one can conclude in comparison using the annual ring curves of the historical woods that it was often dry in summer in the High Middle Ages. Even the Rhine, the largest river in Europe, became dry near Cologne. Yet the High and Late Middle Ages were not a phase of decline like the Early Middle Ages. . . . .
 
Relatively meaningless, regardless. From my perspective, it is about "simple engineering" dilemmas.



Too bad you strayed from the question 'Is there AGW climate change' into the question 'Is there climate change'.

BTW, if climate change is causing the flood waters to threaten the coasts so, why do you concentrate on just about 5% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere when you strictly monitor the greenhouse CO2? Isn't there an impending catastrophe?
 
Last edited:
New Cities in more optimal locations could be, intelligently designed from the ground up.
That is a difficult sell, unless you want a totalitarian form of government.
 
That is a difficult sell, unless you want a totalitarian form of government.

CO2 level rising could cause exponential rise in global temperatures.

We have our federal doctrine to work with.

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause (which implies the use of Capitalism) in particular.

Junk bonds not junk laws! There is no reason the rich should not be able to, get richer under our form of Capitalism.

Only that, the Poor should not have to suffer inequality "for free".
 
So... longview has decided to go back to outright lying about this study.

:doh

The full quote from that study:



The reason Feldman et al added that line wasn't so that it would be accepted by the peer reviewers. It was so people like long wouldn't try and do exactly what long is doing here now. It is just fundamentally wrong to directly compare surface measurements to calculations of forcing at the tropopause. And the part about sensible and latent heat is about how the atmosphere can store and release heat. So there is no energy being created or destroyed.

And the really screwed up thing is that this has been shown to long several times now. And he is both unable to learn this truth or refute it in any way at all.

If you ask me its longview's politics that prevent him from excepting this truth.
You quoted the same section I did, but it does not change Feldman's findings, and
for any imbalance to affect the surface temperature, that imbalance would need to be present at the surface.
 
CO2 level rising could cause exponential rise in global temperatures.

We have our federal doctrine to work with.

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause (which implies the use of Capitalism) in particular.

Junk bonds not junk laws! There is no reason the rich should not be able to, get richer under our form of Capitalism.

Only that, the Poor should not have to suffer inequality "for free".
CO2 cannot cause an exponential rise in global temperatures, if anything it is the exact opposite.
As we increase the level of CO2 it gets less effective, which is why it's effect is measured on a doubling curve.
But let me show you how it works to explain.
If we double CO2 from the pre industrial level of 280 ppm to 560 ppm (a difference of 280ppm) the amount of no feedback
forcing would be about 1.1C
SO
280 to 560 ppm =1.1C
now the second doubling,
560 to 1120ppm ( a difference of 560 ppm)=1.1C
And don't let your bleeding heart drip on the floor, rigid laws on CO2 emissions will impact the poor much more than the rich.
 
CO2 cannot cause an exponential rise in global temperatures, if anything it is the exact opposite.
As we increase the level of CO2 it gets less effective, which is why it's effect is measured on a doubling curve.
But let me show you how it works to explain.
If we double CO2 from the pre industrial level of 280 ppm to 560 ppm (a difference of 280ppm) the amount of no feedback
forcing would be about 1.1C
SO
280 to 560 ppm =1.1C
now the second doubling,
560 to 1120ppm ( a difference of 560 ppm)=1.1C
And don't let your bleeding heart drip on the floor, rigid laws on CO2 emissions will impact the poor much more than the rich.

lol. don't actually believe in Capitalism except in socialism threads?
 
lol. don't actually believe in Capitalism except in socialism threads?
Well test your theory, who would be impacted greater by a $1 per gallon fuel tax?
Someone who makes $40,000 a year, or someone who makes $90,000 a year?
 
Well test your theory, who would be impacted greater by a $1 per gallon fuel tax?
Someone who makes $40,000 a year, or someone who makes $90,000 a year?

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause.

Junk bonds could fund our projects via Commerce, well regulated.

I agree with you that Congress should delegate the intelligent design of our political-economy, to those best suited; for Congressional approval and oversight.
 
Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause.

Junk bonds could fund our projects via Commerce, well regulated.

I agree with you that Congress should delegate the intelligent design of our political-economy, to those best suited; for Congressional approval and oversight.
Your attempts at deflection will not work, Will you acknowledge that regulation changes that
affect the cost of fuels, will impact the poor greater than the rich?
 
Your attempts at deflection will not work, Will you acknowledge that regulation changes that
affect the cost of fuels, will impact the poor greater than the rich?

lol. We could have a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).

Junk bonds not junk laws; we subscribe to Capitalism! Our Commerce Clause is supreme in any conflict of laws.

We could add or remove whatever atmosphere we should require.
 
lol. We could have a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).

Junk bonds not junk laws; we subscribe to Capitalism! Our Commerce Clause is supreme in any conflict of laws.

We could add or remove whatever atmosphere we should require.
You must not be aware of the massive amounts of money we spend on Fusion research, and have been for 50 years?
Fusion Energy Sciences
We have to consider the impacts regulations have on the population.
 
You must not be aware of the massive amounts of money we spend on Fusion research, and have been for 50 years?
Fusion Energy Sciences
We have to consider the impacts regulations have on the population.

What regulations are you referring to in new Cities, intelligently designed, from the underground, up?
 
Public transportation should enable greater access to consumer and labor markets to more potential market participants.
A place has to make something, a city cannot survive on services alone, unless it is fed from a broader source that makes something.
Las Vegas, might be an example of a mostly services city, but even they have some manufacturing.
 
A place has to make something, a city cannot survive on services alone, unless it is fed from a broader source that makes something.
Las Vegas, might be an example of a mostly services city, but even they have some manufacturing.

Let's say that more persons find easier to find jobs and spend money, because of that simple and general and public service.
 
Let's say that more persons find easier to find jobs and spend money, because of that simple and general and public service.
There first has to be the jobs, before the ease of getting to that job matters!
 
You quoted the same section I did, but it does not change Feldman's findings, and
for any imbalance to affect the surface temperature, that imbalance would need to be present at the surface.

Your attempts at deflection will not work...

You quoted the same section I did

No... you quoted about half of one sentence. I quoted all of 3 sentences that give the full context. And your partial quote is highly misleading without the full quote.

but it does not change Feldman's findings

No, it doesn't. But it does expose your completely dishonest calculations for the fraud that they are.

and for any imbalance to affect the surface temperature, that imbalance would need to be present at the surface.

No **** Sherlock... so tell us all why you are comparing changes in surface measurements with calculations of imbalance happening near, or at the top of the atmosphere. You will not because you can't!! At least you can't without lying about it.
 
Your attempts at deflection will not work...



No... you quoted about half of one sentence. I quoted all of 3 sentences that give the full context. And your partial quote is highly misleading without the full quote.



No, it doesn't. But it does expose your completely dishonest calculations for the fraud that they are.



No **** Sherlock... so tell us all why you are comparing changes in surface measurements with calculations of imbalance happening near, or at the top of the atmosphere. You will not because you can't!! At least you can't without lying about it.
For the portion of the spectrum Feldman measured, the two numbers should be almost the same.
CO2 blocks nearly 100% of the 15 um photons within 100 meters, that slowdown/frequency shift is what is seen at the top of the atmosphere
as an energy imbalance, a reduction in the energy out vs energy in.
Think of 1000 feet of water pipe, with a valve near the beginning,
If I have the valve open 100%, and then close the valve to 50%, would not that same volume reduction show up at the end of the pipe, as at the valve?
The analogy is not perfect but close, A photon moving toward space, will get there, but as a collection of lower energy photons and longer wavelengths.
but no matter the path, the total energy of that starting photon will leave the atmosphere.
Feldman's downwelling longwave radiation is the result of the low frequency spontaneous emission of atmospheric atoms and molecules, decaying back towards ground state.
The energy that is coming down, is a wider spectrum mirror of the energy that is leaving the atmosphere, the two portions that make the whole.
Measuring the downwelling longwave radiation is not simply measuring lesser energy photons near the surface, but photons
that have originated from the entire column of atmosphere, all the way out to the top of the atmosphere.
 
Back
Top Bottom