• 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

Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...

In other words, people who say things you don't like are 'pundits', no matter how much better they understand the issue than you.

And I love how you characterize scientists as 'hypocrites' when they don't address your pet theory, which you have written precisely zero papers on and presented precisely no data about at scientific meetings.

But you read a paper once, so there's that.

What a joke.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...
The most recent temperature spike was mostly based on an El Nino, and was not predicted 30 years ago.
The temperatures have already started to return to normal.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess 'about' is a confusing word to you.
Click to expand...
Well Here is your text from post#34,
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...
Since the actual GISS temperature change with the El Nino error was 1.06 C, Your "about" must have about a 1C swing.
So based on your "about" the global temperature increase could be anywhere from .12 C to 2C, are there abouts!
 
longview said:
The most recent temperature spike was mostly based on an El Nino, and was not predicted 30 years ago.
The temperatures have already started to return to normal.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Yep. It's all a figment of the experts imagination.
 
longview said:
Well Here is your text from post#34,

Since the actual GISS temperature change with the El Nino error was 1.06 C, Your "about" must have about a 1C swing.
So based on your "about" the global temperature increase could be anywhere from .12 C to 2C, are there abouts!
Click to expand...

As I've shown, the estimate is as high as 1.75 degrees, and given that the full effect will still not be realized in decades, it's 'about' 2 degrees.
 
longview said:
The most recent temperature spike was mostly based on an El Nino, and was not predicted 30 years ago.
The temperatures have already started to return to normal.
Click to expand...

I think any scientist that did understand climate, and it's causes, could easily feel confident in predicting a rapid increase in temperatures since about 1980. We had the solar increases from 1713 to 1958 with their lag, and the clearing of the skies from EPA regulations of the 70's.

More solar energy striking the surface by maybe 2% or more from the clearing of the skies, and at least 0.3% from solar changes, and the feedback that apply.

It's a no-brainier.
 
Threegoofs said:
As I've shown, the estimate is as high as 1.75 degrees, and given that the full effect will still not be realized in decades, it's 'about' 2 degrees.
Click to expand...
And I shell qoute your post #34 again,
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...
Already is past tense, so you cannot now say it will occur in the future.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think any scientist that did understand climate, and it's causes, could easily feel confident in predicting a rapid increase in temperatures since about 1980. We had the solar increases from 1713 to 1958 with their lag, and the clearing of the skies from EPA regulations of the 70's.

More solar energy striking the surface by maybe 2% or more from the clearing of the skies, and at least 0.3% from solar changes, and the feedback that apply.

It's a no-brainier.
Click to expand...

No doubt you were a denier in the 80s, toho.
 
Threegoofs said:
No doubt you were a denier in the 80s, toho.
Click to expand...

Do you remember how dirty the skies were?

Factories, automobiles, airplanes, etc. with no pollution controls?

Well, I sure do.

Then past science did dio studies on optical transparency. Without looking it up, I seem to recall that this has a swing of 4%. Now a 4% difference is solar energy striking the oceans and ground surface is a undeniable, significant change in energy for the earth energy budget. Solar changes themselves are small, but significant too.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do you remember how dirty the skies were?

Factories, automobiles, airplanes, etc. with no pollution controls?

Well, I sure do.

Then past science did dio studies on optical transparency. Without looking it up, I seem to recall that this has a swing of 4%. Now a 4% difference is solar energy striking the oceans and ground surface is a undeniable, significant change in energy for the earth energy budget. Solar changes themselves are small, but significant too.
Click to expand...
I came across this abstract in another thread, Talking about the increase in solar energy reaching the ground as the aerosols clear.
I am still looking for the whole paper.
Global and regional climate impacts of future aerosol mitigation in an RCP6.0-like scenario in EC-Earth - Springer
 
Is it just me or does anyone else here see the irony of all the denialists here who have refused to see the similarity between what the tobacco companies did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now and how they are really doing the same thing?

Contrary to what many like Lord of Planar think, the case against tobacco was not as clear as he thinks it was. For many years there wasn't clear proof that it was really bad for your health. And the tobacco companies exploited this fact to push uncertainty about those dangers. It wasn't until there was literally decades of scientific evidence showing the adverse affects of tobacco and court cases showing that the tobacco companies knowingly lied about it that most realized and admitted the truth.

Now we have the fossil fuel industry(and others) doing essentially the same thing. Exploiting the fact that there is no absolute proof and a lot of uncertainty concerning AGW. And here we have the usual bunch of denialists who have derailed this thread by demanding proof of the adverse affects of AGW or by pushing wild speculation, unsupported theory and misleading information.

Do you guys not see the hypocrisy of what you are doing here?
 
Buzz said:
Is it just me or does anyone else here see the irony of all the denialists here who have refused to see the similarity between what the tobacco companies did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now and how they are really doing the same thing?

Contrary to what many like Lord of Planar think, the case against tobacco was not as clear as he thinks it was. For many years there wasn't clear proof that it was really bad for your health. And the tobacco companies exploited this fact to push uncertainty about those dangers. It wasn't until there was literally decades of scientific evidence showing the adverse affects of tobacco and court cases showing that the tobacco companies knowingly lied about it that most realized and admitted the truth.

Now we have the fossil fuel industry(and others) doing essentially the same thing. Exploiting the fact that there is no absolute proof and a lot of uncertainty concerning AGW. And here we have the usual bunch of denialists who have derailed this thread by demanding proof of the adverse affects of AGW or by pushing wild speculation, unsupported theory and misleading information.

Do you guys not see the hypocrisy of what you are doing here?
Click to expand...

Except that the fossil fuel industry does not fund climate skeptics.
 
Threegoofs said:
Here's one for you.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html
Click to expand...

Did you read it?


Meanwhile, the least sensitive
show temperatures reaching one-third
of this level. Is this range of predictions
realistic? The recent literature suggests
not: up-to-date global energy-budget
observations1,2 indicate a climate sensitivity
below the modelled range, implying that
future warming has been overestimated.
​


The
widest range of climate sensitivity supported
by recent observations1,2 is 1.0–4.0 °C, with a
best estimate at around 2.0 °C. At face value,
this suggests that models, with a range4 of
2.0–5.6 °C, are altogether too sensitive.
​
 
Buzz said:
Is it just me or does anyone else here see the irony of all the denialists here who have refused to see the similarity between what the tobacco companies did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now and how they are really doing the same thing?

Contrary to what many like Lord of Planar think, the case against tobacco was not as clear as he thinks it was. For many years there wasn't clear proof that it was really bad for your health. And the tobacco companies exploited this fact to push uncertainty about those dangers. It wasn't until there was literally decades of scientific evidence showing the adverse affects of tobacco and court cases showing that the tobacco companies knowingly lied about it that most realized and admitted the truth.

Now we have the fossil fuel industry(and others) doing essentially the same thing. Exploiting the fact that there is no absolute proof and a lot of uncertainty concerning AGW. And here we have the usual bunch of denialists who have derailed this thread by demanding proof of the adverse affects of AGW or by pushing wild speculation, unsupported theory and misleading information.

Do you guys not see the hypocrisy of what you are doing here?
Click to expand...

So...

What if the "not clear proof" this time swings in favor of us skeptics?
 
Lord of Planar said:
So...

What if the "not clear proof" this time swings in favor of us skeptics?
Click to expand...

That would be a very big and unlikely swing. And even if that did happen it still wouldn't justify your hypocrisy.
 
Buzz said:
That would be a very big and unlikely swing. And even if that did happen it still wouldn't justify your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
What I think you are missing is that almost no one here is saying added CO2 does not cause warming.
While there is room for discussion on the sensitivity of the added CO2, that it causes some warming is not questioned.
Where the differences occur, is with the amplified feedback of the initial CO2 warming, and the final ECS.
For more than a century, this number has been falling, Arrhenius I think was around 6 C,
Later the IPCC settled on a range of 2 to 4.5 C, and later revised the range down to 1.5 to 4.5 C.
Many still believe the IPCC still gives a best estimate of 3 C, but AR5 did not release an ECS best estimate.
Many of the AR5 lead authors published an article after AR5, showing a best estimate around 2 C.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
If doubling the CO2 level causes 2 C of total warming, over 180 years, it may not be distinguishable from the background noise.

As to the oil companies funding climate skeptics, large oil companies fund many things, including scientific research,
but they have no requirement to find one way or the other for AGW.
 
longview said:
What I think you are missing is that almost no one here is saying added CO2 does not cause warming.
While there is room for discussion on the sensitivity of the added CO2, that it causes some warming is not questioned.
Where the differences occur, is with the amplified feedback of the initial CO2 warming, and the final ECS.
For more than a century, this number has been falling, Arrhenius I think was around 6 C,
Later the IPCC settled on a range of 2 to 4.5 C, and later revised the range down to 1.5 to 4.5 C.
Many still believe the IPCC still gives a best estimate of 3 C, but AR5 did not release an ECS best estimate.
Many of the AR5 lead authors published an article after AR5, showing a best estimate around 2 C.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
If doubling the CO2 level causes 2 C of total warming, over 180 years, it may not be distinguishable from the background noise.

As to the oil companies funding climate skeptics, large oil companies fund many things, including scientific research,
but they have no requirement to find one way or the other for AGW.
Click to expand...

We are all aware you read an article once.

Here's the latest on the topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...may-be-more-sensitive-and-situation-more-dire

This puts the Otto paper (your IPCC hero!) in context with later papers, by Cowtan and Way, and Marvel 2015.



Bet you won't believe this...because you're position is based on faith, and opposing points are dismissed outright.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom