• 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!

Phony op-eds about climate change

joG said:
Oh. There is no question that the answers and quatifications are cut and dried. There are a lot of things that are far from well known. But the basic physics is rather is well known and there is no point in arguing about it. That only diverts from the real challenge and delegitimates the position.
Click to expand...

Odd that the IPCC has such a wide range of predictions then isn't it.

You will find that there are those here who do understand it a lot more than you. And disagree.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Odd that the IPCC has such a wide range of predictions then isn't it.

You will find that there are those here who do understand it a lot more than you. And disagree.
Click to expand...

Disagree with what? The basic physics hypothesis that CO2 or Methane have a greenhouse effect and that the effect is well known?
 
joG said:
Disagree with what? The basic physics hypothesis that CO2 or Methane have a greenhouse effect and that the effect is well known?
Click to expand...

So does water vapor. In fact all or almost all of the effect of CO2 and methane is already being doen by water vapor over most of the world. Or at least that is also a hypothesis of credibility.

Do you consider the range of predictions made by the IPCC to be reasonable? If so why is it such a large spread of values?
 
joG said:
Disagree with what? The basic physics hypothesis that CO2 or Methane have a greenhouse effect and that the effect is well known?
Click to expand...
While people have been speculating about the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere for over a century.
The actual mechanisms are not understood.
Arrhenius did some amazing work considering Quantum physics did not exists yet.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
But his numbers were way off.
He found a doubling of the CO2 level would produce direct warming of about 5 C.
The current IPCC estimate is 1.2 C, and even that number is in question.
Perhaps Arrhenius's opening statement statement about Tyndail was correct,
and the effect of CO2 chiefly effect diurnal and annual variations.

A great deal has been written on the influence of the absorption of the atmosphere
upon climate. Tyndail in particular has pointed out the enormous importance of the question.
To him it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variation of the temperature that were lessened
by this circumstance.
Click to expand...
The problem with the current greenhouse theory, is at a quantum level it would be an ongoing continuous
process. Molecules do not decide when and where they will absorb and re emit energy,
yet the observed effects are asymmetrical both on a diurnal scale and seasonally.
About 75 % of the observed warming is in nighttime lows (T-Min) not going as low.
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
So what Tyndail is noted as observing in 1896 is still occurring, diurnal and seasonal variation.
 
longview said:
While people have been speculating about the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere for over a century.
The actual mechanisms are not understood.
Arrhenius did some amazing work considering Quantum physics did not exists yet.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
But his numbers were way off.
He found a doubling of the CO2 level would produce direct warming of about 5 C.
The current IPCC estimate is 1.2 C, and even that number is in question.
Perhaps Arrhenius's opening statement statement about Tyndail was correct,
and the effect of CO2 chiefly effect diurnal and annual variations.


The problem with the current greenhouse theory, is at a quantum level it would be an ongoing continuous
process. Molecules do not decide when and where they will absorb and re emit energy,
yet the observed effects are asymmetrical both on a diurnal scale and seasonally.
About 75 % of the observed warming is in nighttime lows (T-Min) not going as low.
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
So what Tyndail is noted as observing in 1896 is still occurring, diurnal and seasonal variation.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to imply that all aspects of physics in this or any other area are certain at the sub particle level. At levels of higher aggregate the warming seems to work. But I am not doctrinaire and could easily accommodate its being valid only under cp caveat.
 
IPCC is estimating that you'll see a rise in global temps of about 3 degrees C with each doubling of CO2 levels. This could be as low as -1.5 degrees, but could also be as high as 4.5 degrees. These numbers are not all equally likely- it's a probability curve, and 3 degrees is most likely.

Amateur posters (some who claim scientific expertise because they subscribe to one (1) journal!) think it's on the low end, because they really, really want to believe that.

I'll go with the scientists on this one.
 
joG said:
I didn't want to imply that all aspects of physics in this or any other area are certain at the sub particle level. At levels of higher aggregate the warming seems to work. But I am not doctrinaire and could easily accommodate its being valid only under cp caveat.
Click to expand...
The point is that the basic physics is known, but not well understood or qualified.
And this is the most accepted portion of the IPCC's predicted warming.
 
Threegoofs said:
IPCC is estimating that you'll see a rise in global temps of about 3 degrees C with each doubling of CO2 levels. This could be as low as -1.5 degrees, but could also be as high as 4.5 degrees. These numbers are not all equally likely- it's a probability curve, and 3 degrees is most likely.

Amateur posters (some who claim scientific expertise because they subscribe to one (1) journal!) think it's on the low end, because they really, really want to believe that.

I'll go with the scientists on this one.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that IPCC AR5 did not give a best guess or a most likely for ECS,
The reason why not, may be explained by a Nature article many of the IPCC AR5 lead authors
felt compelled to write after the report was released.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
ECS - Copy.jpg
The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy
budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5–95% confidence interval of
1.2–3.9 °C (dark red, Fig. 1a), compared with the 1970–2009 estimate of 1.9 °C
(0.9–5.0 °C; grey, Fig. 1a)
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
It should be noted that IPCC AR5 did not give a best guess or a most likely for ECS,
The reason why not, may be explained by a Nature article many of the IPCC AR5 lead authors
felt compelled to write after the report was released.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
View attachment 67204251
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't understand confidence intervals?

I know you really, really want to pretend the temp rise is very low, but given we've realized about 2 degrees C already, the smart money says you're laughably wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe you don't understand confidence intervals?

I know you really, really want to pretend the temp rise is very low, but given we've realized about 2 degrees C already, the smart money says you're laughably wrong.
Click to expand...
In what data set have we realized 2 C already?
Even counting the latest El Nino, GISS only shows -.2 to .86 C since 1880,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
In my world that is 1.06 C since 1880, which is reality is is lower since the El Nino
likely added a temporary .1 C.
 
joG said:
Disagree with what? The basic physics hypothesis that CO2 or Methane have a greenhouse effect and that the effect is well known?
Click to expand...

Greenhouse gasses also have a cooling nature too. The quantification of the total effects are unknown. Some scientists even thing added greenhouse gasses create more cooling than warming.

Thing is, there is no solid evidence of the total net results.

Wouldn't it be funny if the pundits got law passed against bad science punditry, then the AGW crowd was the ones misleading?

Seriously. There is no proof that added CO2 does anything harmful. This is far different than tobacco, whereas solid evidence was produce. Anyone thinking there are comparable, is a total indoctrinated idiot!

If you disagree, then please present the proof.
 
Threegoofs said:
IPCC is estimating that you'll see a rise in global temps of about 3 degrees C with each doubling of CO2 levels. This could be as low as -1.5 degrees, but could also be as high as 4.5 degrees. These numbers are not all equally likely- it's a probability curve, and 3 degrees is most likely.

Amateur posters (some who claim scientific expertise because they subscribe to one (1) journal!) think it's on the low end, because they really, really want to believe that.

I'll go with the scientists on this one.
Click to expand...

Science, based on statistical math, based of observations? Observations that do not have all variables accounted for?

When you you learn

Facts make statistics.

Statistics no not make facts.
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe you don't understand confidence intervals?

I know you really, really want to pretend the temp rise is very low, but given we've realized about 2 degrees C already, the smart money says you're laughably wrong.
Click to expand...

2 degrees... so... correlation equals causation in your book, and you stay ignorant to the changes of the other several variables?

You punditry is amazing!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Greenhouse gasses also have a cooling nature too. The quantification of the total effects are unknown. Some scientists even thing added greenhouse gasses create more cooling than warming.

Thing is, there is no solid evidence of the total net results.

Wouldn't it be funny if the pundits got law passed against bad science punditry, then the AGW crowd was the ones misleading?

Seriously. There is no proof that added CO2 does anything harmful. This is far different than tobacco, whereas solid evidence was produce. Anyone thinking there are comparable, is a total indoctrinated idiot!

If you disagree, then please present the proof.
Click to expand...

15e9af403e5dba25268685c74d3fd610.gif
 
Threegoofs said:
15e9af403e5dba25268685c74d3fd610.gif
Click to expand...

So?

Correlation seldom equals causation. We have had temperature data corrections, aerosol level changes, solar changes, land use changes, and other factors besides greenhouse gasses.

Do you expect us to see the same thing you do in a simple graph?
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess 'about' is a confusing word to you.
Click to expand...

Oh...

I understand.

Like satellite data with a +/- 3 degree or so accuracy, but the pundits claim changes accurate to 0.1 degrees...

Go figure...

Real hard science when the given data is inside the noise range. Without a proper signal to noise ration, the data is garbage.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So?

Correlation seldom equals causation. We have had temperature data corrections, aerosol level changes, solar changes, land use changes, and other factors besides greenhouse gasses.

Do you expect us to see the same thing you do in a simple graph?
Click to expand...

This recent temperature spike was predicted 30 years ago.

By scientists, not anonymous DP posters, I'll remind you.

So I think I'll go with the non-libertarian scientists over some anonymous amateur with an agenda.
 
Threegoofs said:
This recent temperature spike was predicted 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Not surprising, considering the lag of the ocean-atmosphere coupling is known to be long, and the oceans absorb more than half the solar flux.

Threegoofs said:
By scientists, not anonymous DP posters, I'll remind you.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should learn more of the science facts, rather than from what the pundits say in the blogs you read.

Science acknowledges lag. Why don't the pundits you worship ever speak of the solar lag?

Threegoofs said:
So I think I'll go with the non-libertarian scientists over some anonymous amateur with an agenda.
Click to expand...
Yes..

I have an agenda.

It's called the truth!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not surprising, considering the lag of the ocean-atmosphere coupling is known to be long, and the oceans absorb more than half the solar flux.


Maybe you should learn more of the science facts, rather than from what the pundits say in the blogs you read.

Science acknowledges lag. Why don't the pundits you worship ever speak of the solar lag?


Yes..

I have an agenda.

It's called the truth!
Click to expand...

I dont think the AAAS, NAS, AGU, etc. are really considered 'pundits'.

But then again, when you hear something that conflicts with what you really REALLY want to believe, you dismiss it as 'punditry', because you subscribe to a journal and have 'several years of experience in engineering'. LOL.
 
Threegoofs said:
I dont think the AAAS, NAS, AGU, etc. are really considered 'pundits'.

But then again, when you hear something that conflicts with what you really REALLY want to believe, you dismiss it as 'punditry', because you subscribe to a journal and have 'several years of experience in engineering'. LOL.
Click to expand...

When they say the stupid things they do, they cross that line to punditry.

I have never seen you explain why various material on greenhouse gasses claim anywhere from 40 years to over 120 years for equalization to take place from changes, yet remain silent of equalization for solar changes.

Can you at least acknowledge the hypocrisy?

How about the changing optical density of the atmosphere? What is the last paper you read that refers to it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom