• 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!

So what is this 'ideal' climate and why is todays all wrong

Threegoofs said:
Truly hilarious to watch deniers agree with each other.

The IPCC is written by scientists, generally the top ones in their respective fields, not ‘government flunkies working in a clearinghouse’.

And Longview agrees!

Pathetic. Really pathetic.
Click to expand...
The IPCC reports may be written by scientist, but it is later edited by the political flunkies mentioned,
and often inconvenient portions of the scientists work are excluded, which is why so many will not work with the IPCC.
 
longview said:
The IPCC reports may be written by scientist, but it is later edited by the political flunkies mentioned,
and often inconvenient portions of the scientists work are excluded, which is why so many will not work with the IPCC.
Click to expand...
Edited by political flunkies? Really?

So you’re saying the scientists - the lead writers - dont have the final word?

Surely you can actually name some of the political flunkies, right?
 
longview said:
Yes, but it is not me saying it but a former lead Author.
Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Here's the WIKI discussion of his work on the IPCC:

IPCC activities[edit]
Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 "IPCC Second Assessment". He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science"[60] although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report[61] but had been amended to state more definite conclusions.[62] He also emphasized the fact that the summary had not been written by scientists alone. The NAS panel on which Lindzen served says that the summary was the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers.[c]
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added)

I wonder which it was.
 
istodolez said:
That's interesting. Here's the WIKI discussion of his work on the IPCC:


(Emphasis added)

I wonder which it was.
Click to expand...
I am not sure it matters! What matters is that the Summary did not match the conclusions in the actual report.
 
longview said:
I am not sure it matters! What matters is that the Summary did not match the conclusions in the actual report.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, summaries often lose a lot in terms of detail. But either way the science seems to be there in the report. At least if Lindzen is to be believed.
 
Since the Summary for Policy Makers, is what is for the people making the policies are getting their data from,
it should at least reflect the uncertainty expressed in the actual report.
 
Threegoofs said:
Nowhere, and I repeat NOWHERE does he say ‘political flunkies’ edit the document, or even write it.

So what’s the deal? Gonna admit you lied?
Click to expand...
Not using the exact words does not change the meaning,
Here is what he said.
"What are some of the problems with the IPCC process, according to Lindzen? It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists. "
 
longview said:
Not using the exact words does not change the meaning,
Here is what he said.
"What are some of the problems with the IPCC process, according to Lindzen? It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists. "
Click to expand...
Your meaning was very, very clear.

You said ‘political flunkies edit it’.

Why do you lie? Not confident that the truth works to make your case?
 
Threegoofs said:
Your meaning was very, very clear.

You said ‘political flunkies edit it’.

Why do you lie? Not confident that the truth works to make your case?
Click to expand...
Yes I repeated the phrase used in post #321, so what? It does not change the fact that editors
misrepresented what was in the main IPCC reports in the Summary for Policy makers report.
You may call those who choose to make misrepresentations in their edits what you want,
but it does not change what they did!
 
longview said:
Yes I repeated the phrase used in post #321, so what? It does not change the fact that editors
misrepresented what was in the main IPCC reports in the Summary for Policy makers report.
You may call those who choose to make misrepresentations in their edits what you want,
but it does not change what they did!
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the lead authors are the primary editors, and the lead authors are generally senior, respected scientists in their fields. They are responsible for the final versions of the IPCC statements.

Again, nowhere does anyone except you indicate that the reports (which now youve moved goalposts to 'Summary for Policy Makers' ) are edited by political flunkies.

And that doesnt even count that you agreed with Glitch that the entire document is written by political operatives and their entire purpose is to misrepresent and lie about scientific papers.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm pretty sure the lead authors are the primary editors, and the lead authors are generally senior, respected scientists in their fields. They are responsible for the final versions of the IPCC statements.

Again, nowhere does anyone except you indicate that the reports (which now youve moved goalposts to 'Summary for Policy Makers' ) are edited by political flunkies.

And that doesnt even count that you agreed with Glitch that the entire document is written by political operatives and their entire purpose is to misrepresent and lie about scientific papers.
Click to expand...
Well if you are pretty sure, then that settles it! Seriously all that matters is that is that from one of the lead Authors
perspective, the content in the main report was misrepresented in the Summary for policy makers.
None of this changes the evidence, that using the IPCC forcing figures, and the data from the three main
temperature data sets, GISS, BEST, and HadCrut4, high levels of positive feedbacks cannot be demonstrated.
We could discuss the data, but I suspect you would not like to do that.
 
Glitch said:
The IPCC is not an authority on anything. They are government flunkies working in a clearinghouse for scientific papers on the climate written by others whose purpose is to push an ideology over science. The IPCC also regularly, and deliberately, misrepresents the data presented in those scientific papers.

If you want to cite a credible source, cite the scientific paper used by the IPCC, but don't pretend the IPCC is even remotely credible, because they are not.
Click to expand...

IPCC or a chatter in an online forum. Which is more credible?
That one is easy.
 
Glitch said:
There really is no such thing as the "ideal" climate. Particularly when you consider that we have been in an ice-age for the last 2.588 million years. The current mean global temperature is 14.8°C, but when not in an ice-age the Earth has been averaging 22°C ± 1°C.

The hottest this planet has ever been in the last 600 million years was between 270 and 250 million years ago, after the fourth ice-age ended, when temperatures reached between 35°C and 40°C. We ended up losing more than 90% of all life during that period, so that is probably not an "ideal" climate.

So if you factor out the current ice-age, the climate would be ~8°C warmer, with atmospheric CO2 in the 1,200 to 1,500 ppmV range. So the planet would be much greener, but it would also mean losing all the glaciers.
Click to expand...

What else would happen on a world wide basis by the time we would lose all the glaciers? Would it cause any long term environmental or economic problems for humans?
And all these millions of years of which you speak have zero merit because Homo sapiens were not around then.
 
watsup said:
IPCC or a chatter in an online forum. Which is more credible?
That one is easy.
Click to expand...
Which is why I used the IPCC's forcing numbers to show that the high levels of positive feedback were not present
in the observed data.
Even though I may not think much of how the IPCC does it's reports, AGW proponents seem to worship at the IPCC alter.
 
longview said:
While I agree with you about the IPCC, it is the authority the alarmist hold up as evidence of catastrophic predictions.
By showing that even with the IPCC's numbers, a case cannot be made for evidence of strong positive feedbacks,
it actually weakens the IPCC's case!
Click to expand...

Take it up with the scientists at the IPCC. I know you love to tilt at windmills in an online chat room, but it means nothing at all in terms of discovering the facts regarding manmade global warming.
 
Glitch said:
The last 800,000 years is merely the furthest back we're able to carbon date. The last 800,000 years show brief interglacial warm periods and long glacial periods. The last interglacial period before the current Holocene is called the Eocene and occurred between 128,000 and 115,000 years ago, and was warmer that the current Holocene interglacial.

There have been more than 50 interglacial periods since the current ice-age began 2.588 million years ago. Ice-ages also vary in duration. The shortest ice-age was the Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya) ice-age. The longest was the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago) ice-age.

The average duration for the last four ice-ages is 215 million years. So it looks like there may be more than 212 million years left to go before the Quaternary ice-age ends.
Click to expand...

None of this makes a bit of difference because large numbers of Homo sapiens have only been around for 100,000 years or so and “modern” civilization for less than 15,000 years. Any climate change beyond that means absolutely nothing in a conversation about AGW.
 
longview said:
The IPCC reports may be written by scientist, but it is later edited by the political flunkies mentioned,
and often inconvenient portions of the scientists work are excluded, which is why so many will not work with the IPCC.
Click to expand...


Prove it. Or are you just ranting again without the slightest bit of evidence.
 
longview said:
Which is why I used the IPCC's forcing numbers to show that the high levels of positive feedback were not present
in the observed data.
Even though I may not think much of how the IPCC does it's reports, AGW proponents seem to worship at the IPCC alter.
Click to expand...

Show me the IPCC’s numbers as you state above and a specific cite of where I can see them in publications (specific page, it just a “study”) WITHOUT comment from you. After I read them and ask a question, then you can chime in.
 
longview said:
The sea will continue to rise, until the cycle turns around, nothing Humans do will affect that much.
You need only look at the long term tide gauges to see this.
As for the weather, you might be surprised to find that it really has not changed that much.
We have always had Hurricanes, floods, droughts, ect, and we will continue to have them.
The frequency, and intensity of these weather events is well within the "normal" envelope.
Click to expand...
Why weren't you at Kyoto or Paris? It's not too late. Put all this in a scholarly paper, get it peer reviewed and submit it to the next meeting later this year. Get Science or Scientific American mags to publish a summary so we citizens can stop worrying and go and save whales instead. Maybe Inhofe can call you to testify. Bring a snowball. End all this foolishness.
 
watsup said:
Prove it. Or are you just ranting again without the slightest bit of evidence.
Click to expand...
Consider that one of the lead Authors on IPCC AR5, Alexander Otto, worked on the Scientific basis section of the report,
and wrote up their findings that a best estimate of 2XCO2 ECS was about 2 C,
what made it into the SPM, was the following footnote.
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies "
Otto, and many of the other authors of the section went ahead and published their findings.
Energy budget constraints on climate response
"The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C"
Compare and contrast the two statements for differences?
 
watsup said:
Show me the IPCC’s numbers as you state above and a specific cite of where I can see them in publications (specific page, it just a “study”) WITHOUT comment from you. After I read them and ask a question, then you can chime in.
Click to expand...
The data is from wood for Trees.
Wood For Trees
I used the raw data tab at the bottom.
The forcing is from IPCC Figure SMP.5
IPCC AR5 SPM
Using the the total forcing between 1950 and 2011, plus the increase in TSI, which is not included in the
Total anthropogenic RF totals, but is listed as natural changes.
The IPCC uses a figure of .3C per W/m2 of imbalance.
 
longview said:
Consider that one of the lead Authors on IPCC AR5, Alexander Otto, worked on the Scientific basis section of the report,
and wrote up their findings that a best estimate of 2XCO2 ECS was about 2 C,
what made it into the SPM, was the following footnote.
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies "
Otto, and many of the other authors of the section went ahead and published their findings.
Energy budget constraints on climate response
"The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C"
Compare and contrast the two statements for differences?
Click to expand...

I asked you to prove your statement that IPCC reported are edited by political flunkies. I don’t see that you did that above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom