• 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!

We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It

Indeed:

U.S. Wildfires: Burn Area Expected To Double By 2050

"Warmer and drier conditions in coming decades will likely cause the burned area from wildfires in the U.S. to double in size by 2050, according to new research based on satellite observations and computer modeling experiments. The research, which was first presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco on Dec. 4, provides insight into both recent wildfire trends and the sharp increase in dryness — and therefore wildfire susceptibility — in certain regions of the country."

"In addition, the research shows that the midsection of the country — from Texas to North Dakota — is likely to become drier as the climate continues to warm in response to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. That drying will significantly increase the amount of burned area in this zone, said Doug Morton of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Morton said other regions of the country, including the West, will likely see a continued increase in burned area as well."

U.S. Wildfires: Burn Area Expected To Double By 2050

My guess is Texas barbecue is going to take on a whole new meaning!



"Could", "may", "likely", "models" ... this is proven science alright!
 
"Could", "may", "likely", "models" ... this is proven science alright!

Models enabled space flight, but they're no good now. Got it! And the satellite observations? There not acceptable to the science deniers either?
 
"Could", "may", "likely", "models" ... this is proven science alright!


Unlike the True Believers, real scientists always qualify their statements. Scientists do make the assumptions that if their work results in 90 to 97% probabilities said research is probably true, for some reason those who deny science always seem to work with absolutes.
 
Models enabled space flight, but they're no good now. Got it! And the satellite observations? There not acceptable to the science deniers either?

Models only work if the inputs are known values GI=GO as has been illustrated for you many times. Here are the principle reasons climate models always fail ....... again :roll:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

Given major factors like clouds ,water vapour and CO 2 climate sensitivity are unknowns we really are talking about total guesswork here in the final analysis
 
Last edited:
Models only work if the inputs are known values GI=GO as has been illustrated for you many times. Here are the principle reasons climate models always fail ....... again :roll:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

Given major factors like clouds ,water vapour and CO 2 climate sensitivity are unknowns we really are talking about total guesswork here in the final analysis



Thanks for the science denier's view of scientific models. What do science deniers think about satellite observations? They're no good either, right? And the ice cores going back 11,000 years as referenced in the peer reviewed study in the OP?
 
Models enabled space flight, but they're no good now.


They also enable plane crashes, sinking ships and falling buildings. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.


And the satellite observations? There not acceptable to the science deniers either?


So it is your opinion tat any model derived from satellites is infallible? It's becoming ever clearer why you are a true believer.
 
Unlike the True Believers, real scientists always qualify their statements. Scientists do make the assumptions that if their work results in 90 to 97% probabilities said research is probably true, for some reason those who deny science always seem to work with absolutes.

So when anyone says that the global warming science is settled they are not behaving like scientists? Glad you have come around to my way of thinking. There is more hope for you than there is for Catawba.
 
So when anyone says that the global warming science is settled they are not behaving like scientists? Glad you have come around to my way of thinking. There is more hope for you than there is for Catawba.


ROFLMAO!


Sorry (well not much) but there is no more hope for me than there is for any other rational person who believes that deniers are denying reality for political reasons more than for scientific ones.
 
They also enable plane crashes, sinking ships and falling buildings. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.

So it is your opinion tat any model derived from satellites is infallible? It's becoming ever clearer why you are a true believer.



Let's review, science deniers do not accept the use of scientific tools such as models, satellite measurements, and ice core analysis from around the world dating back thousands of years. Thanks for sharing that with us! It helps explain a lot!
 
Thanks for the science denier's view of scientific models. What do science deniers think about satellite observations? They're no good either, right? And the ice cores going back 11,000 years as referenced in the peer reviewed study in the OP?

What peer review study ? There was (unsurprisingly) no link to the actual paper and no catalogued publication number for it either. Given you have shown you have no clue what a valid peer review study looks like its unsurprising that you accept this opinion piece as one frankly

Did you even open my link I wonder ? You are so far gone its quite impossible to reason with you. If you arent here to actually learn anything then what else are you here for except to spout endless bile at those who question your sermons :roll:
 
What peer review study ?

This one:


Earth Is Warmer Today Than During 70 to 80 Percent of the Past 11,300 Years

March 7, 2013

"With data from 73 ice and sediment core monitoring sites around the world, scientists have reconstructed Earth's temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age.

The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it's been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.

Results of the study, by researchers at Oregon State University (OSU) and Harvard University, are published this week in a paper in the journal Science.

Lead paper author Shaun Marcott of OSU says that previous research on past global temperature change has largely focused on the last 2,000 years.

Extending the reconstruction of global temperatures back to the end of the last Ice Age puts today's climate into a larger context.

"We already knew that on a global scale, Earth is warmer today than it was over much of the past 2,000 years," Marcott says. "Now we know that it is warmer than most of the past 11,300 years."

"The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age," says Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences. The research was funded by the Paleoclimate Program in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences."

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Earth Is Warmer Today Than During 70 to 80 Percent of the Past 11,300 Years - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

I posted this March 9 here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/153944-global-warming-epic-long-term-study-says-2.html#post1061549040
 
This one:


This is NOT a peer reviewed study either . You've been shown enough of them by me and others yet you still do not know what they look like.

You'll find links to literally hundreds of worldwide Peer review studies and/or abstracts here. That contradict the alleged findings of this one.

CO2 Science

NCDC/NOAA polar ice core sampling disagrees too

Ice Cores

And just for good measure

Medieval Warm Period

Now wheres that study ?
 
This one:



This is NOT a peer reviewed study either . You've been shown enough of them by me and others yet you still do not know what they look like.

You'll find links to literally hundreds of worldwide Peer review studies and/or abstracts here. That contradict the alleged findings of this one.

CO2 Science

NCDC/NOAA polar ice core sampling disagrees too

Ice Cores

And just for good measure

Medieval Warm Period

Now wheres that study ?







Trying sleigh of hand now since the majority of science refutes your position? The study was referenced in the Science Academy article I posted.

Here is the abstract with a link to the full text at the bottom:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years


Show us any proof there is more than just a small fraction of peer-reviewed science that rejects AGW.
 
You're all depressing me ... I'm outa here ...
 
Trying sleigh of hand now since the majority of science refutes your position? The study was referenced in the Science Academy article I posted.

Here is the abstract with a link to the full text at the bottom:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years


Show us any proof there is more than just a small fraction of peer-reviewed science that rejects AGW.

There is no link to the full text at the bottom only a 'paywalled' repetition of the abstract, so its impossible to check the if methodologies used climate modelling in thier reconstructions I also noticed this paragraph earlier.

"The chemical and physical characteristics of the fossils--including the species as well as their chemical composition and isotopic ratios--provide reliable proxy records for past temperatures by calibrating them to modern temperature records"

This is not possible and represents a bending of data to fit a hypothesis much like Deuces graph some time back . It also emphasises misplaced faith in computer climate modelling in its analysis which is of course outright guesswork.

Testament to the fact that you do not even bother opening links given to you is your demand of proof to the contrary despite the fact that you had just been presented with a whole mass of it :roll:
 
Last edited:
There is no link to the full text at the bottom only a 'paywalled' repetition of the abstract, so its impossible to check the if methodologies used climate modelling in thier reconstructions I also noticed this paragraph earlier.

"The chemical and physical characteristics of the fossils--including the species as well as their chemical composition and isotopic ratios--provide reliable proxy records for past temperatures by calibrating them to modern temperature records"

This is not possible and represents a bending of data to fit a hypothesis much like Deuces graph some time back . It also emphasises misplaced faith in computer climate modelling in its analysis which is of course outright guesswork.

Testament to the fact that you do not even bother opening links given to you is your demand of proof to the contrary despite the fact that you had just been presented with a whole mass of it :roll:


I wouldn't sweat it since that abstract doesn't even say what Catawba wants it too. If we take it at face value it confirms the existence of a 2C dip in climate during the little ice age, and a global temperature that is only warmer than 75% of the record. That would indicate that this warming trend is about average. If you take the GC mean for the period of that reconstruction then by definition half of the data points will be above the mean and half below the mean. So comparing current temps to just the warmer data points we find that half are warmer and half are colder (75% puts it smack in the middle of the upper half of samples). So the current warming is average among warm periods...

RUN FOR THE HILLS!

I agree that this is no more dependable than other reconstructions, but it shows how little Catawba actually understands about this subject that he'd read that abstract and decide that that was supporting his side.
 
Last edited:


I'm sorry, that is ONE study compared to a veritable ocean of studies that say the universe is younger! That paper must be by a denier! ;)

Imagine how slowly humanity would advance if science worked the way Catawba thought it did. All advancements in human knowledge would have to wait until at least there was a balance in the amount of literature before accepting that the old assumptions were simply wrong.
 
If you take the GC median for the period of that reconstruction then by definition half of the data points will be above the median and half below the median.

Whoops, writing before coffee is dangerous. I meant median, not mean.
 
The Washington Post
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”



That article was written on November 2, 1922.
 
There is no link to the full text at the bottom only a 'paywalled' repetition of the abstract, so its impossible to check the if methodologies used climate modelling in thier reconstructions I also noticed this paragraph earlier.

"The chemical and physical characteristics of the fossils--including the species as well as their chemical composition and isotopic ratios--provide reliable proxy records for past temperatures by calibrating them to modern temperature records"

This is not possible and represents a bending of data to fit a hypothesis much like Deuces graph some time back . It also emphasises misplaced faith in computer climate modelling in its analysis which is of course outright guesswork.

Testament to the fact that you do not even bother opening links given to you is your demand of proof to the contrary despite the fact that you had just been presented with a whole mass of it :roll:


Its a brand new study just published in the Journal of Science this month. When more than the abstract is available you can deny it just as you have denied all the rest of the peer-reviewed studies that support AGW. And you can say all the scientific methods used by the experts are wrong. That is what deniers do.
 
Back
Top Bottom