• 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!

Will Trump Usher in the End of the World?

Last edited:
Quaestio said:
So when your dishonest claims are pointed out to you several times what do you do? Ignore it and Keep on denying.
Click to expand...
See Chapter 12, page 1110 Box 12.2

IPCC Working Group I
This states the range is still 1.5 to 4.5 °C and still does not have a best estimate for ECS.

Also see Chapter 10 section 8.2 pages 920-926
IPCC Working Group I
This is a strange one, It seems the IPCC saw fit to cite the the papers showing lower best estimates,
without actually saying what they were, yet still managed to include Hansen's AR4 best estimate of 3.1 C.
Note: AR5 still does not include a Best estimate for ECS.

If you bothered to read the abstracts in the most recent papers, you would see the distinction.
Those whose work is based on the empirical data, mostly come in with lower sensitivity,
those whose "evidence" is a result of models tend to come in higher.
I think the more traditional Scientific approach is to try and get the theory to match the observation,
not to try and force the observation to match the theory!
 
Quaestio said:
Here you go again. You find a 14 year old internet article, cherry pick a sentence you like, ignore the rest and ignore all the research since. That's ideologically motivated denial of science, not scientific scepticism.
Click to expand...
Do you think the early IPCC reports got the amount of warming from the increase in solar activity wrong?
If so what else do you think they got wrong?
Back in 2001 the IPCC was saying roughly half of the .6 °C of observed warming was from the increase
in solar activity,(that is .3 °C to most of us, but I am too old for common core!)
While the sun has lost some TSI since 2001, it has not returned to 1880 levels.
Why can you not look at the actual temperature data vs CO2?
The 1.2 C for a doubling stipulates that roughly .63 °C of the observed warming should be from CO2s direct response.
In 2001 the IPCC said .3 °C was from the solar increase.
The combination leave very little room for the predicted amplified feedback.
 
longview said:
Do you think the early IPCC reports got the amount of warming from the increase in solar activity wrong?
If so what else do you think they got wrong?
Back in 2001 the IPCC was saying roughly half of the .6 °C of observed warming was from the increase
in solar activity,(that is .3 °C to most of us, but I am too old for common core!)
While the sun has lost some TSI since 2001, it has not returned to 1880 levels.
Why can you not look at the actual temperature data vs CO2?
The 1.2 C for a doubling stipulates that roughly .63 °C of the observed warming should be from CO2s direct response.
In 2001 the IPCC said .3 °C was from the solar increase.
The combination leave very little room for the predicted amplified feedback.
Click to expand...

I think they got a lot wrong. That article I cited in post 61 seems to have its ducks in a row.
 
Quaestio said:
More dishonest conspiracy nuttery from you. A real 'sceptic' would search the literature and see why Lindzen's 'iris' hypothesis was flawed.
Click to expand...
Actually his concept of an atmospheric iris, seems to fit the range of observations fairly well.
The conventional model, does not fit the broad range of diurnal and seasonal asymmetry in the observed data.
Consider if the 15 um IR and CO2 were the main player, the greenhouse effect based on that would be present
almost everywhere except maybe the coldest portions of the poles,
But if this were correct, why would the southern hemisphere have not warmed nearly as much as the northern hemisphere?
Even a cold ocean emits wavelength shorter than 15 um!
 
Quaestio said:
I'm afraid he cornered himself and exposed himself again by being dishonest and denying science he doesn't like - as usual.
But never fear, I'm sure he'll keep on posting the same thing, over and over again - like a prayer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but from where I watched he gutted you and hung your carcass up to drain.
 
calamity said:
I think they got a lot wrong. That article I cited in post 61 seems to have its ducks in a row.
Click to expand...
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
They do cover a lot of the history, but gloss of the key component of AGW.
Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.
The ancient ice ages were the reverse of our current situation, where humanity was initiating the change by adding greenhouse gases.
As the gas level rose, temperature would rise with a time lag — although only a few decades, not centuries, for the rates of change were
now enormously faster than the orbital shifts that brought ice ages.
Click to expand...
I have a couple of issues with the concept of the extreme feedback necessary for AGW to be considered a problem.
First off, while there does appear to be some minor positive feedback, It's level is about .6 X the input warming.
If you buy into the basic greenhouse gas physics, the doubling the CO2 level will cause about 1.2 °C of direct response warming.
The current level would be about .63 °C for the change of 280 ppm to 403 ppm of CO2.
The latest GISS data suggest we have warmed about 1 °C over that same time.
In 2001, the IPCC seemed to think that the increase in solar activity had cause about .3 °C of warming.
This only leaves about .1 °C of warming from the amplified feedback.
Even it you look at long latency the level of amplified feedback is quite small.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...ng-post-trc-climate-etc-2.html#post1066500952
Bear in mind to reach an ECS of 3 °C for a doubling of CO2, the amplification factor would need to be 1.5 X.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but from where I watched he gutted you and hung your carcass up to drain.
Click to expand...
Kind words, but I am not sure I would go that far,
I am simply trying to emphasize that the higher end of the IPCC range is not supported by the observable data.
 
longview said:
Kind words, but I am not sure I would go that far,
I am simply trying to emphasize that the higher end of the IPCC range is not supported by the observable data.
Click to expand...

Yes. That was your stated objective and you achieved it, nattering to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
joG said:
If the Mediterranean climate gets too hot , I'll go North in Summer.
Click to expand...

I am looking to buy some beach front property in the Himalaya's.
 
calamity said:
Seems to be on course to maybe happen--at least all the signs that the end is nigh could be put in place during his term.

Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be 'game over', scientists warn | The Independent
Click to expand...

The snipet you posted is among the least informed or most intentionally misleading quotes that I've ever read.

To help put things in perspective for you, at this moment, with the highest CO2 readings on record, our world is cooler than the warmest point of this interglacial and the warmest point of every interglacial ever of the last half million years.

If Trump outlawed the use of any fossil fuel and that prohibition was followed by all Americans, the CO2 in the world would continue to rise AS IT HAS THROUGHOUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

The Atmosphere carries about a 5% component of Green House Gases. About 95% of that 5% is water vapor. About 3 or 4 % of the non-water GHG's is CO2.

From the coldest global temperatures of the last half million years to the warmest global temperature of the last half million years, the range is about 15 degrees.

Your source believes that our planet will shortly warm by half that amount in the next century? This is simply irrational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology


Ice core data for the past 800,000 years . Note length of glacial-interglacial cycles averages ~100,000 years. Blue curve is temperature,[SUP][16][/SUP]red curve is atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB]concentrations,[SUP][17][/SUP] and brown curve is dust fluxes.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP] Today's date is on the left side of the graph because the x-axis values represent "age before 1950".​


​
 
Fletch said:
Yes, the world is going to end under Trump...:roll:

Is there no medication you lefties can take for a few days?
Click to expand...

The world has already ended for them. Trump may pull out many of the security blankets the left enjoys, and make the USA a working nation instead of a nanny state.
 
Cameron said:
I doubt Trump will be the difference on climate change. If the studies are true, we're f***ed in that regard regardless. It's not like Clinton with this Congress would have pulled us back off the edge.
Click to expand...

And again, we can destroy our nation trying to go carbon neutral, and it wouldn't make any notable difference with what Asia is doing.
 
Fishking said:
Actually, if he accomplishes some of his policies, to a significant degree, he will have done more to reduce carbon than any other politician. That policy being bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. from places like China and other nations that have little to no environmental regulations.

View attachment 67209827
Click to expand...

Yep.

If he accomplishes that, other nations will pollute less!
 
Fishking said:
Yup...I've never understood liberals on this one. It's like if we don't do something in our own back yard it doesn't even exist. It just gets done via magic dust.
Click to expand...

Out of sight, out of mind.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And again, we can destroy our nation trying to go carbon neutral, and it wouldn't make any notable difference with what Asia is doing.
Click to expand...
The only way the world will go carbon neutral, is if that is naturally the lowest cost choice.
When the man made carbon neutral fuels are the low cost choice, we would not be able to turn them away.
On the plus side, what happens in the middle east will cease to be important.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And again, we can destroy our nation trying to go carbon neutral, and it wouldn't make any notable difference with what Asia is doing.
Click to expand...
The best thing we can do in this regard is buy property in Canada, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom