• 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!

STUDY: 'Global warming' has made weather better for most in USA...

bubbabgone said:
You may not have noticed, but the positions by those groups NASA listed seem to be simply "We think whatever the IPCC said."
Which means they didn't do any research and have no freaking idea themselves so they just go with the guys they know have a steady public funded income like themselves.
Click to expand...

It's all a massive conspiracy of every single scientific body on the planet! Muuuahahahaha!
 
TheGoverness said:
But there is a scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is warming due to human activity, and that we need to do something about it before it's too late.
Click to expand...
There is a consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause some warming, The IPCC sets the actual physics related warming at 1.2°C for a doubling of CO2.
Beyond that there is speculation about many feedbacks both positive and negative, but it is speculation with a very wide range of uncertainty.
So yes there is a consensus that human activity is causing some warming, not so much about the need to do anything about it.
It is really a non starter problem, we have a real energy problem, and addressing that will solve any CO2 problems as a byproduct.
 
Geoist said:
So the only person who has made this claim is an electrical engineer, not a climatologist? Then why have conservatives acted like it is gospel? Are they just clinging on to any anti-GW claim they can find? (rhetorical question, really)
Click to expand...
Part of the evidence for CO2 is it was the only suspect, Evans introduced a valid alternate suspect, His model hindcasts better.
 
Dittohead not! said:
As would dinosaurs coming back.
And there's about as much evidence for the dinosaurs as there is for global cooling.
Click to expand...
Evans model fits the data fairly well, better than the CO2 model, I just hope he is wrong.
 
Health Warning:

This should not be attempted on a planet called home.

CgltP8GXEAAHCOQ.jpg:large
 
longview said:
If his model fits, does it matter?
Click to expand...

Well, lets just say theres a real good chance the model doesnt fit.

I think I'll stick with the guys who actually collect and collate and interpret the data for a living, rather than a conservative wingnut goldbug who just happens to hate central banking and cap and trade but miraculously uses other peoples data to stumble on a brilliant theory no actual scientist recognizes.

Call me crazy.

Hey - have you heard of this one crazy trick to extend your life? Just send me a $25 money order to this PO box and I'll send you the secret!
 
Geoist said:
So the only person who has made this claim is an electrical engineer, not a climatologist? Then why have conservatives acted like it is gospel? Are they just clinging on to any anti-GW claim they can find? (rhetorical question, really)
Click to expand...
It might surprise but most of the people both pro and con, have degrees in other subjects, mostly Physics.
For the type of evaluation Dr. Evans did, it is well within the capability of a Phd electrical engineer.
Bear in mind very few people are actually researching the quantum level events that lead CO2 to be a greenhouse gas,
and the century old theory could be if not wrong very inaccurate.
The diurnal asymmetry is still one aspect which puzzles the experts.
Dr. Hansen said in 1995 the asymmetry should correct itself, yet 20 years the ratio is almost the same.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, lets just say theres a real good chance the model doesnt fit.

I think I'll stick with the guys who actually collect and collate and interpret the data for a living, rather than a conservative wingnut goldbug who just happens to hate central banking and cap and trade but miraculously uses other peoples data to stumble on a brilliant theory no actual scientist recognizes.

Call me crazy.

Hey - have you heard of this one crazy trick to extend your life? Just send me a $25 money order to this PO box and I'll send you the secret!
Click to expand...
Have you looked at his model? it is on an excel spreadsheet, and he cites and references all of his data, without the need of a FOIA request.
 
longview said:
It might surprise but most of the people both pro and con, have degrees in other subjects, mostly Physics.
For the type of evaluation Dr. Evans did, it is well within the capability of a Phd electrical engineer.
Bear in mind very few people are actually researching the quantum level events that lead CO2 to be a greenhouse gas,
and the century old theory could be if not wrong very inaccurate.
The diurnal asymmetry is still one aspect which puzzles the experts.
Dr. Hansen said in 1995 the asymmetry should correct itself, yet 20 years the ratio is almost the same.
Click to expand...

But only one guy does it part time on a blog while working on gold stock tips in between....
 
longview said:
Have you looked at his model? it is on an excel spreadsheet, and he cites and references all of his data, without the need of a FOIA request.
Click to expand...

Sure. Right after I finish this review on the homeopathic pharmacopeia and the theory on the quantum mechanics of Faith Healing.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Typical of AGW denialists, young Earth creationists, and anti vaxxers: Call anyone who you don't agree with ignorant and deceptive. The use of ad hominem attacks automatically excludes you from the list of people I'd want to debate with, at least on this subject.
Click to expand...

But you are ignorant and deceptive. The truth is the truth!
 
Threegoofs said:
Sure. Right after I finish this review on the homeopathic pharmacopeia and the theory on the quantum mechanics of Faith Healing.
Click to expand...
I take you answer as a no! That you take it on blind faith, that an
alternate theory of global warming is wrong because?
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
As would dinosaurs coming back.
And there's about as much evidence for the dinosaurs as there is for global cooling.
Click to expand...

I suspect there will be plenty of 'evidence' of global cooling if the whole AGW thing falls completely apart. They have to have some kind of crisis going to keep all that lovely tax payer provided government funding pouring into their study projects.
 
Threegoofs said:
You mean having a mean increase of about 3 degrees c, which would be quite damaging to the environment?

Again, the consensus, as I painstakingly cut and pasted for you, is not that AGW exists, but that AGW exists AND ITS A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
Click to expand...
Goofs, I have a question for you!
Which RCP path do you think we are on?
RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, or RCP8.5?
Bear in mind the IPCC lays out likely temperature ranges for each of the scenarios.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I suspect there will be plenty of 'evidence' of global cooling if the whole AGW thing falls completely apart. They have to have some kind of crisis going to keep all that lovely tax payer provided government funding pouring into their study projects.
Click to expand...

The AGW theory "falling apart" is about as likely as a giant conspiracy involving every scientific organization on Earth and their respective governments in order to "keep the money flowing."
 
longview said:
Goofs, I have a question for you!
Which RCP path do you think we are on?
RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, or RCP8.5?
Bear in mind the IPCC lays out likely temperature ranges for each of the scenarios.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that WE DONT KNOW. All of the RCPs are based upon future behavior, so one cant know what path you are on unless you can predict the future.

The entire point of the issue is to reduce emissions so we stay on the lowest pathway possible.
 
longview said:
I take you answer as a no! That you take it on blind faith, that an
alternate theory of global warming is wrong because?
Click to expand...

Why do I take it on blind faith that a new homeopathic remedy the guy across the street cooked up in his bathtub isnt the cure for cancer?

Should I check that one out in detail too? If I end up buying some gold stock tips from him as I check out the theory it might be worthwhile, huh?
 
Threegoofs said:
The whole point is that WE DONT KNOW. All of the RCPs are based upon future behavior, so one cant know what path you are on unless you can predict the future.

The entire point of the issue is to reduce emissions so we stay on the lowest pathway possible.
Click to expand...
So you have just defined the limit of our knowledge of the future.
It also limits the ability to say with any certainty what the temperature will be in 2100.
 
longview said:
So you have just defined the limit of our knowledge of the future.
It also limits the ability to say with any certainty what the temperature will be in 2100.
Click to expand...

Climate Change scientists make inferences based on the evidence they have documented, as well as reasoning. They don't know exactly what the temperature is going to be in 2100, but they have a good idea of what's going to be like.
 
longview said:
So you have just defined the limit of our knowledge of the future.
It also limits the ability to say with any certainty what the temperature will be in 2100.
Click to expand...

but we can say with a high degree of certainty that it will be warmer than it was way back in 2016.
 
longview said:
So you have just defined the limit of our knowledge of the future.
It also limits the ability to say with any certainty what the temperature will be in 2100.
Click to expand...

Ummm. right.

Except we know that it will be much warmer the more greenhouse gasses we emit in to the atmosphere. There is a good range of uncertainty, but pretending the low end of the range is the most likely scenario ignores the ACTUAL most likely scenario, that its in the middle of the range (3 degrees C with a doubling) and possibly at the high end of the range. And the high end would be devastating to human civilization, where the medium end will be fairly difficult to manage.

So the certainty that we have is that we can limit the potential damage by reducing carbon emissions. And the best way to do that in my mind seems to be to make the emitters of GHG pay for their environmental damage now, instead of pawning it off on future generations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom